This article wasn't exactly about anything too scientific, but it was humorous and semi-enlightening none-the-less. Questions such as, "Why does, slow down and slow up mean the same thing?" highlight the weirdness of our language. Other idioms are also quite prevalent in our language.
One other thing that was humorous and highlighted is the inconsistency of grammatical principles. One question, "If two mouses are mice and two louses are lice, why aren't two houses hice?" is a common example, and humorous at the same time. This reminds me about the article we read awhile ago that discussed the mathematical relationship between when irregular verbs become regular.
A final type of question or paradox pointed out are things like, "Is there another word for a synonym?" or "What is another word for thesaurus?". These questions are very interesting and point some of the unique and fun aspects of our language. Overall, these sometimes subtle nuances or blatant abuses of the "rules" make English a difficult and, to me, interesting language to learn.
Original Article: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=158588
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Swiss spend heavily to learn language of life
While this article doesn't specifically relate to language, I thought it would provide for an interesting comparison article. The topic of discussion was a Swedish initiative that will spend $350 million in Systems Biology. This is considered an unprecedented amount of money in any particular field, and will prove to be very beneficial to pharmaceutical innovation if successful.
The reason why I chose to talk about this article is because biological systems are much like languages. They both have very organic processes in the respect that they change over time, they choose the most popular/successful characteristics to carry on, and they play very specific roles or functions in whatever they do. Another correlating factor is that they both are extremely different in composition and makeup within different organisms (or languages), yet they usually act cohesively and have some underlying characteristics that are similar or the same.
Overall, it was an interesting article to read and I think the same approach that we are taking to studying biology could probably be cross-applied to languages. When we sequenced the genome, we weren't looking for anything in particular, we were just trying to gather information. It seems the best way to take the next step in psychology/linguistics, we should gather as much information about every language, and then do analysis on them.
Original Article: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/detail/Swiss_spend_heavily_to_learn_language_of_life.html?siteSect=105&sid=8500233&cKey=1196888442000&ty=st
The reason why I chose to talk about this article is because biological systems are much like languages. They both have very organic processes in the respect that they change over time, they choose the most popular/successful characteristics to carry on, and they play very specific roles or functions in whatever they do. Another correlating factor is that they both are extremely different in composition and makeup within different organisms (or languages), yet they usually act cohesively and have some underlying characteristics that are similar or the same.
Overall, it was an interesting article to read and I think the same approach that we are taking to studying biology could probably be cross-applied to languages. When we sequenced the genome, we weren't looking for anything in particular, we were just trying to gather information. It seems the best way to take the next step in psychology/linguistics, we should gather as much information about every language, and then do analysis on them.
Original Article: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/detail/Swiss_spend_heavily_to_learn_language_of_life.html?siteSect=105&sid=8500233&cKey=1196888442000&ty=st
Is One Language Test a Good Thing
This article discussed the legislation that is going through Alabama regarding the number of languages that the driving test is offered in. A legislator wants it to only be offered in English, while it is currently offered in 14 languages including English, Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Russian, Korean and Japanese. The main argument for a single test is that all road signs are in English and that giving individuals an opportunity to take the test in alternative languages creates a hazard on the road because they can't read it.
I personally agree that this is an important issue that we should tackle. The only problem I have with this argument is that in all of the sources I could find, none of them indicated how many accidents happened because of non-english speaking individuals. As such, I can't fully agree that the bill should be passed. Having hard evidence would make such a law relevant, but without it, it seems like taxpayer money is being wasted.
A final thought to extend a comment from an earlier post, how interesting would it be to create road signs in every language that they tested in? Wouldn't that be dangerous, wasteful, and unnecessary? Why don't they take that money and put it into programs that teach these individuals English instead? Okay, I'm done with my comments.
Original Article: http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/articles/2007/12/05/opinion/for_the_record/3-editorial.txt
Additional Source: http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20071204/TL02/71204004/1007
I personally agree that this is an important issue that we should tackle. The only problem I have with this argument is that in all of the sources I could find, none of them indicated how many accidents happened because of non-english speaking individuals. As such, I can't fully agree that the bill should be passed. Having hard evidence would make such a law relevant, but without it, it seems like taxpayer money is being wasted.
A final thought to extend a comment from an earlier post, how interesting would it be to create road signs in every language that they tested in? Wouldn't that be dangerous, wasteful, and unnecessary? Why don't they take that money and put it into programs that teach these individuals English instead? Okay, I'm done with my comments.
Original Article: http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/articles/2007/12/05/opinion/for_the_record/3-editorial.txt
Additional Source: http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20071204/TL02/71204004/1007
Chinese Language is Difficult but Rewarding
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)