Poet Shahril Nizam claims that in order to express himself, he must find the "right language." He is not referring to choosing between languages of different cultures, but rather the different languages within himself. Nizam claims that, “drawing and writing are just ways of externalising thoughts and ideas." He explains that sometimes it is difficult to be direct all of the time. He oscillates between feeling open with his writing and secretive, but by drawing he is able to subconsciously express his inner thoughts. Nizam says that by doing this he can express thoughts that he may not even understand, want to admit, or be aware of at the time. Drawing allows his mind to "disconnect", and to be "honest without revealing too much." The symbolism and imagery of his drawings are left open to the interpretation of the viewer and can mean different truths to different people.
This article reminded me of a discussion we had in class about what the language of the mind or thought is. We talked about how the language of thought can speak in words in multiple languages but also in pictures and images.
There are several theories describing what the language of thought entails. The Language of Thought Hypothesis explains thought as existing in a "mental language" sometimes called mentalase. The hypothesis explains that cognition is a computational process of mental representations. This cognition is different than spoken or written language and involves processing at a level involving conceptual information that is completely distinctive than the level of written symbols. The Language of Thought Hypothesis suggests that instead of being interpreted logically by mathematical structures, the language of the mind has more dimensions. In order to understand the language of thought, propositional attitudes (the attitudes the thinker has toward a subject or a claim) must be observed. Thinking involves much more complex understanding than a written sentence requires. The Language of Thought Hypothesis sees the language of the mind as being completely different than the language that a person speaks or writes.
There are several other theories behind the language of thought, such as the ideas of 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein believed that people who speak English think in the English language. Wittengenstein claimed that concepts that were nonfactual could not be expressed in language because they go beyond what can be thought of in the mind.
In considering mental language as being equvalent to a spoken or written language, it is also interesting to consider special cases such as deafness or aphasia. For example, those who are deaf cannot speak a language, yet still have thought. This may give evidence for some type of mental language that can be independent of a spoken language.
We have heard so many different ideas about what thought is and how it relates to our language. I am interested to hear opinions about this topic. Do you agree that the language we think in is the same as the language we speak? If we speak more than one language, can we then think in different languages? Or is our mental language really a "mentalase" in which we use a completely different process independent of our spoken language? Is this mentalase universal--do we all think in the same language?If it is a common "mentalase", why have some studies shown that different language can influence our thought processess in different ways? Can activities like drawing truly express the thought we are feeling inside, or is this a myth? Do people who say this just draw and then interpret what is drawn as being relative to their own reflections, or is drawing truly an outlet of the mind's language? Please comment :)
Links:
http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2007/10/28/lifebookshelf/19286663&sec=lifebookshelf
http://accessingyourhigherself.wordpress.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_thought
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6s.htm
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Defense of Quebec culture or racism?
Due to the events this past week, criticism is being launched at politicians in Quebec, claiming that the struggle for a cleansed, purified Quebec identity is nothing short of racism.
The Parti Québécois is a separatist political party that supports sovereignty for Quebec and secession from Canada. The Parti Québécois recently proposed Bill 195, the Quebec Identity Act. In an attempt to restore and protect the Quebec culture, the Act would require all new immigrants to learn the French languge within a three year time period, or else forfeit the rights of holding public office, raising money for a political party, or petitioning Parliament with grievances.
Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois claims that the Act would defend the French language and culture in Quebec. She believes that all immigrants entering Quebec should be "reasonably accomodated," and have not been in the past. Marois says that Quebec will pay for French instruction for immigrants. The Quebec population is approximately 40% immigrants according to Lorrie Goldstein (author of the article), the majority being Muslim. Immigrants already living in Quebec would not be subject to the new law, but all those entering after the law passed would be subject to the law.
The Parti Québécois bill is vague in the language used to explain the type of French the immigrants must acquire. The bill states that the immigrants must have an "appropriate" knowledge of the language and does not specify what the word appropriate entails. Who has the authority to determine an appropriate level or knowledge of the French language? Is there a test the immigrants must pass or will they be subject to the judgment of the government? Would judgment from the government even be fair given the circumstances and the motives of the different political parties?
Both the Liberals and the ADQ (the two major political parties in Quebec) are in opposition to the Quebec Identity Act, claiming that the bill would divide Quebec into two classes of citizens. Both leaders of the parties (Jean Charlest and Mario Dumont, respectively) see the bill as unlikely to pass. However, although the Liberals and the ADQ have criticized the bill, anti-immigrant sentiment appears to be common in Quebec. Polls have demonstrated an escalating concern that immigrants are not assimilating into the Quebec society. Many citizens have complained that the federal government has been too helpful to immigrants.
The Bloc Québécois (another political party in Quebec) put forth a bill this week to keep Muslim women from voting behind their burkas. The Bloc Québécois is a federal political party in Canada whose main goal is sovereignty for Quebec. Members and supporters are known as "Bloquistes", and intend to defend the interests of all Québécois in Ottawa through legislation. The Bloc Québécois originated in 1990, and currently maintain support. However, their support base has been decreasing in the past few years. The Parti Québécois is much older than the Bloc Québécois (orginating in 1968), and members of the Parti Québécois are generally called péquisites. It currently is the 3rd party in Quebec's National Assembly behind the Liberals and the ADQ ( Action démocratique du Quebec). Although not officially linked to the Bloc Québécois, the Parti Québécois is often associated with the Bloc Québécois. Both desire independence for Quebec and social democracy, and the parties tend to support each other during elections. Many members of one party are also members of the other party, and members tend to vote in favor of the same issues.
Whether the Quebec Identity Act passes or not, the fact that the Parti Québécois proposed the bill is symbolic of the efforts to separate Quebec from the influence of immigration and the anti-immigration sentiment that has been labeled as racism by several critics.
In terms of language, this issue suggests an important connection between language and identity. The politicians in favor of the Quebec Identity Act imply that in order to preserve Quebec culture and what defines Quebec, the French language must be used. This statement is ironic, considering that Quebec's immigrant population is increasing, creating an environment that becomes more multicultural as time passes. According to wikipedia, in 2001, about 15% of Quebec's population spoke languages other than French or English. Goldstein, (author of "Fanning anti-immigrant flames"), claims that the new immigrant population will be approximately 40%. How can the French language be reflective of the identity of a multicultural province?
The association between language and identity is one that is omnipresent. We have discussed in class about how when we cannot communicate with someone because of a language barrier, we feel that we cannot connect, and that the other person is almost unhuman. We tend to feel most "ourselves" when we converse in our native language and can feel lost when trying to speak in one with which we are less familiar. What is it about our language that makes us so protective of it? Why does the Parti Québécois find it so important to Quebec's culture that the population knows French? What is it about French that creates the Quebec identity and culture. Can you create an identity in the absence of a common language, or in the absence of any language at all?
Although we do not have laws forcing people to learn English in California, do we in a sense evoke the same sentiment? Do we create an environment in which those who cannot speak a certain language feel ostracized and cannot be as successful? Do those who do not speak English lose opportunities, not so much by legal actions, but by the circumstances? Is this feeling that a certain language represents the identity of a region or country something that is deep seeded in all societies?
Links:
1. Goldstein, Lorrie (2007). "Fanning anti-immigrant flames". Sun Media Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/10/25/4603586-sun.html on October 28, 2007.
2. Martin, Don (2007). "It's racism-in any language." National Post. Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=c28a61f1-5dd6-484c-b9ff-991e669850e7 on October 28, 2007.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Québécois
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Québécois
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec#Demographics
The Parti Québécois is a separatist political party that supports sovereignty for Quebec and secession from Canada. The Parti Québécois recently proposed Bill 195, the Quebec Identity Act. In an attempt to restore and protect the Quebec culture, the Act would require all new immigrants to learn the French languge within a three year time period, or else forfeit the rights of holding public office, raising money for a political party, or petitioning Parliament with grievances.
Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois claims that the Act would defend the French language and culture in Quebec. She believes that all immigrants entering Quebec should be "reasonably accomodated," and have not been in the past. Marois says that Quebec will pay for French instruction for immigrants. The Quebec population is approximately 40% immigrants according to Lorrie Goldstein (author of the article), the majority being Muslim. Immigrants already living in Quebec would not be subject to the new law, but all those entering after the law passed would be subject to the law.
The Parti Québécois bill is vague in the language used to explain the type of French the immigrants must acquire. The bill states that the immigrants must have an "appropriate" knowledge of the language and does not specify what the word appropriate entails. Who has the authority to determine an appropriate level or knowledge of the French language? Is there a test the immigrants must pass or will they be subject to the judgment of the government? Would judgment from the government even be fair given the circumstances and the motives of the different political parties?
Both the Liberals and the ADQ (the two major political parties in Quebec) are in opposition to the Quebec Identity Act, claiming that the bill would divide Quebec into two classes of citizens. Both leaders of the parties (Jean Charlest and Mario Dumont, respectively) see the bill as unlikely to pass. However, although the Liberals and the ADQ have criticized the bill, anti-immigrant sentiment appears to be common in Quebec. Polls have demonstrated an escalating concern that immigrants are not assimilating into the Quebec society. Many citizens have complained that the federal government has been too helpful to immigrants.
The Bloc Québécois (another political party in Quebec) put forth a bill this week to keep Muslim women from voting behind their burkas. The Bloc Québécois is a federal political party in Canada whose main goal is sovereignty for Quebec. Members and supporters are known as "Bloquistes", and intend to defend the interests of all Québécois in Ottawa through legislation. The Bloc Québécois originated in 1990, and currently maintain support. However, their support base has been decreasing in the past few years. The Parti Québécois is much older than the Bloc Québécois (orginating in 1968), and members of the Parti Québécois are generally called péquisites. It currently is the 3rd party in Quebec's National Assembly behind the Liberals and the ADQ ( Action démocratique du Quebec). Although not officially linked to the Bloc Québécois, the Parti Québécois is often associated with the Bloc Québécois. Both desire independence for Quebec and social democracy, and the parties tend to support each other during elections. Many members of one party are also members of the other party, and members tend to vote in favor of the same issues.
Whether the Quebec Identity Act passes or not, the fact that the Parti Québécois proposed the bill is symbolic of the efforts to separate Quebec from the influence of immigration and the anti-immigration sentiment that has been labeled as racism by several critics.
In terms of language, this issue suggests an important connection between language and identity. The politicians in favor of the Quebec Identity Act imply that in order to preserve Quebec culture and what defines Quebec, the French language must be used. This statement is ironic, considering that Quebec's immigrant population is increasing, creating an environment that becomes more multicultural as time passes. According to wikipedia, in 2001, about 15% of Quebec's population spoke languages other than French or English. Goldstein, (author of "Fanning anti-immigrant flames"), claims that the new immigrant population will be approximately 40%. How can the French language be reflective of the identity of a multicultural province?
The association between language and identity is one that is omnipresent. We have discussed in class about how when we cannot communicate with someone because of a language barrier, we feel that we cannot connect, and that the other person is almost unhuman. We tend to feel most "ourselves" when we converse in our native language and can feel lost when trying to speak in one with which we are less familiar. What is it about our language that makes us so protective of it? Why does the Parti Québécois find it so important to Quebec's culture that the population knows French? What is it about French that creates the Quebec identity and culture. Can you create an identity in the absence of a common language, or in the absence of any language at all?
Although we do not have laws forcing people to learn English in California, do we in a sense evoke the same sentiment? Do we create an environment in which those who cannot speak a certain language feel ostracized and cannot be as successful? Do those who do not speak English lose opportunities, not so much by legal actions, but by the circumstances? Is this feeling that a certain language represents the identity of a region or country something that is deep seeded in all societies?
Links:
1. Goldstein, Lorrie (2007). "Fanning anti-immigrant flames". Sun Media Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/10/25/4603586-sun.html on October 28, 2007.
2. Martin, Don (2007). "It's racism-in any language." National Post. Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=c28a61f1-5dd6-484c-b9ff-991e669850e7 on October 28, 2007.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Québécois
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Québécois
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec#Demographics
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Translation through Cell Phones
Technology is now renovating our methods of communication through cell phone programs. Now, foreign language speakers will no longer need to lug around Spanish-English or other translation dictionaries, but instead will be able to keep the tools of translation in their pockets.
A company called Edioma is in the process of designing cell phone software that will allow the user to translate between languages. The company hopes that this new translating service will help to bridge the language barrier that keeps many people from being efficient in daily life. The program has up to ten different kits that have phrases associated with specific activities such as shopping or banking. Edioma already released a program for Spanish speakers on Monday called Movida. Movida enables Spanish speakers to learn English phrases that are common in everyday routines. A user can look up a Spanish sentence, and the sentence will appear in English. The sentence also can be heard audibly so that the user can repeat the phrase and know how it sounds. If the user prefers not to speak the phrase, he or she can give the phone to whoever he or she is communicating with so that the person can read the phrase.
While providing users with frequent and practical phrases, the Movida application also has games that help teach English. For example, Movida has a soccer game called "Egoal". Egoal has been downloaded by over 8,000 people since last Friday. The Movida program is expected to be very popular with the Spanish-speaking population in the United States. Although Edioma has only released a Spanish-English version of the translation software, the company has plans to create applications for several other languages such as Mandarin and Hindi.
The Edioma officials claimed that studies have shown that American Spanish speakers can potentially gain $1 million in lifetime salary if they can speak English well. This external motivation is expected to help sales of this program to rocket. The economical benefit of being able to communicate in both Spanish and English in the American business world can give Spanish speakers who learn English greater chance for financial stability and success. This highlights the importance of language in society. Communication is of utmost significance, especially in the business world. When understanding in language is lacking, success may be inhibited.
The Edioma program also sheds light on the never-ending problem with translating correctly. Although translation with programs like Movida is probably more accurate than trying to string together words in a billingual dictionary, there are likely to be issues with translating correctly. Translating between Spanish and English is difficult enough, and the potential for inaccurate translation only increases as languages that are more distinct from English are implemented. I am reminded of the problem Professor Boroditsky brought up about translation ("The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"/"the vodka is good but the meat is rotten").
How can we ever develop any type of technological program that can comprehend the complex structures of different languages? Can any type of application mimic the human mind and the different connotations, associations, and implications that each word or phrase carries? It brings us back to the question: Can we ever really truly translate something? Does it lose part of its meaning when translated? The Edioma programs may be less error-prone, providing that they are dealing with common activities and phrases rather than complex ideas. Overall the programs are expected to be extremely effective for users in everyday life.
Links:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=21348
http://www.chowhound.com/topics/448149
A company called Edioma is in the process of designing cell phone software that will allow the user to translate between languages. The company hopes that this new translating service will help to bridge the language barrier that keeps many people from being efficient in daily life. The program has up to ten different kits that have phrases associated with specific activities such as shopping or banking. Edioma already released a program for Spanish speakers on Monday called Movida. Movida enables Spanish speakers to learn English phrases that are common in everyday routines. A user can look up a Spanish sentence, and the sentence will appear in English. The sentence also can be heard audibly so that the user can repeat the phrase and know how it sounds. If the user prefers not to speak the phrase, he or she can give the phone to whoever he or she is communicating with so that the person can read the phrase.
While providing users with frequent and practical phrases, the Movida application also has games that help teach English. For example, Movida has a soccer game called "Egoal". Egoal has been downloaded by over 8,000 people since last Friday. The Movida program is expected to be very popular with the Spanish-speaking population in the United States. Although Edioma has only released a Spanish-English version of the translation software, the company has plans to create applications for several other languages such as Mandarin and Hindi.
The Edioma officials claimed that studies have shown that American Spanish speakers can potentially gain $1 million in lifetime salary if they can speak English well. This external motivation is expected to help sales of this program to rocket. The economical benefit of being able to communicate in both Spanish and English in the American business world can give Spanish speakers who learn English greater chance for financial stability and success. This highlights the importance of language in society. Communication is of utmost significance, especially in the business world. When understanding in language is lacking, success may be inhibited.
The Edioma program also sheds light on the never-ending problem with translating correctly. Although translation with programs like Movida is probably more accurate than trying to string together words in a billingual dictionary, there are likely to be issues with translating correctly. Translating between Spanish and English is difficult enough, and the potential for inaccurate translation only increases as languages that are more distinct from English are implemented. I am reminded of the problem Professor Boroditsky brought up about translation ("The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"/"the vodka is good but the meat is rotten").
How can we ever develop any type of technological program that can comprehend the complex structures of different languages? Can any type of application mimic the human mind and the different connotations, associations, and implications that each word or phrase carries? It brings us back to the question: Can we ever really truly translate something? Does it lose part of its meaning when translated? The Edioma programs may be less error-prone, providing that they are dealing with common activities and phrases rather than complex ideas. Overall the programs are expected to be extremely effective for users in everyday life.
Links:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=21348
http://www.chowhound.com/topics/448149
Monday, October 22, 2007
Neanderthals Possess "Language Gene"
Language is often viewed as the deciding factor in what distinguishes humans from other animals. Language creates culture, which is in a sense a uniquely human trait. But recent findings may support that another species other than humans possessed the ability to speak.
Scientists have associated the ability for humans to use spoken language with the FOXP2 gene locus. For a long time scientists have believed that a mutation to this gene locus approximately 200,000 years ago gave humans the physical capabilities to utilize spoken language. The mutation in the FOXP2 gene is believed to be unique to humans, giving them the ability to speak through its control of the lips, tongues, and larynx. However, recent discoveries demonstrate that Neanderthals, from whom the human lineage diverged about 300,000 years ago, may have had the abilities to use spoken language. DNA extractions from Neanderthal fossils found in a cave in Spain were studied by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and the scientists found that the DNA contained the identical FOXP2 mutation that is present in human beings. The data suggests that an ancestor common to both Neanderthals and humans may have first had this mutated trait.
This finding makes Neanderthals even more similar to humans than chimpanzees are in terms of genetics (as chimpanzees have a FOXP2 locus differing in two places from humans). The difference in the FOXP2 gene between chimpanzees and humans is thought to be the key element in determining why humans can speak and chimpanzees cannot.
Mice experiments with FOXP2 in which mice were given human copies of the gene gives insight to the possibilities of the genes affect on the mind. The mice made strange sounds and grew extra neural connections in their brains. However, overall, the mice simulated normal behavior.
Because it is not clear exactly how FOXP2 functions, scientists have a wide range of opinions about the discoveries, some more critical than others. Dr. Simon Fisher of Oxford University, claims that “This is a really fascinating study, but analysis of a single gene is not enough to resolve the big question of whether or not Neanderthals were capable of speech or for us to estimate what level of complexity their vocal communication could achieve." Some are also suspicious that the Neanderthal bones were contaminated with human DNA, therefore explaining the presence of the FOXP2 gene found in humans. However, the experts insist that the DNA was collected correctly, including an elaborate freezing process and little chance for contamination. Some people believe that the presence of FOXP2 is a result of gene flow due to interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans, but others argue that this is not probable. A general consensus however, seems to be that the new studies and future studies regarding the Neanderthal genome will revolutionise the way in which we view our Neanderthal ancestors. This discovery is the first time that a specific gene of a Neanderthal has been able to be analyzed, giving much more insight into the Neanderthals than we had in the past.
If Neanderthals really did have a spoken language, then perhaps they also had a culture. This discovery may potentially change our perspective on the Neanderthals. We tend to view them as uncivilized, unsophisticated, unintelligent, animal-like savages, but the idea that they may have had a language and even a culture shatters this view. They in fact may have been more similar to modern day human beings than we have imagined.
I find it interesting that this story was all over the internet. The Neanderthals are an extinct species living hundreds of thousands of years ago, yet there is so much interest in learning about them. Although the story is fascinating and a breakthrough in studying our ancestry, whether or not they had a spoken language does not really directly effect us as humans. Why is there so much excitement over this issue? What fascinates us so much about the possibility of a Neanderthal language?
Links:
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=65818
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/20/nbrute120.xml
http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/22/stories/2007102255892000.htm
http://www.firstscience.com/home/perspectives/editorials/could-neanderthals-speak_38144.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86101.php
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/article/20071019/NEWS/710190374/-1/State
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003964988_language21.html
Scientists have associated the ability for humans to use spoken language with the FOXP2 gene locus. For a long time scientists have believed that a mutation to this gene locus approximately 200,000 years ago gave humans the physical capabilities to utilize spoken language. The mutation in the FOXP2 gene is believed to be unique to humans, giving them the ability to speak through its control of the lips, tongues, and larynx. However, recent discoveries demonstrate that Neanderthals, from whom the human lineage diverged about 300,000 years ago, may have had the abilities to use spoken language. DNA extractions from Neanderthal fossils found in a cave in Spain were studied by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and the scientists found that the DNA contained the identical FOXP2 mutation that is present in human beings. The data suggests that an ancestor common to both Neanderthals and humans may have first had this mutated trait.
This finding makes Neanderthals even more similar to humans than chimpanzees are in terms of genetics (as chimpanzees have a FOXP2 locus differing in two places from humans). The difference in the FOXP2 gene between chimpanzees and humans is thought to be the key element in determining why humans can speak and chimpanzees cannot.
Mice experiments with FOXP2 in which mice were given human copies of the gene gives insight to the possibilities of the genes affect on the mind. The mice made strange sounds and grew extra neural connections in their brains. However, overall, the mice simulated normal behavior.
Because it is not clear exactly how FOXP2 functions, scientists have a wide range of opinions about the discoveries, some more critical than others. Dr. Simon Fisher of Oxford University, claims that “This is a really fascinating study, but analysis of a single gene is not enough to resolve the big question of whether or not Neanderthals were capable of speech or for us to estimate what level of complexity their vocal communication could achieve." Some are also suspicious that the Neanderthal bones were contaminated with human DNA, therefore explaining the presence of the FOXP2 gene found in humans. However, the experts insist that the DNA was collected correctly, including an elaborate freezing process and little chance for contamination. Some people believe that the presence of FOXP2 is a result of gene flow due to interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans, but others argue that this is not probable. A general consensus however, seems to be that the new studies and future studies regarding the Neanderthal genome will revolutionise the way in which we view our Neanderthal ancestors. This discovery is the first time that a specific gene of a Neanderthal has been able to be analyzed, giving much more insight into the Neanderthals than we had in the past.
If Neanderthals really did have a spoken language, then perhaps they also had a culture. This discovery may potentially change our perspective on the Neanderthals. We tend to view them as uncivilized, unsophisticated, unintelligent, animal-like savages, but the idea that they may have had a language and even a culture shatters this view. They in fact may have been more similar to modern day human beings than we have imagined.
I find it interesting that this story was all over the internet. The Neanderthals are an extinct species living hundreds of thousands of years ago, yet there is so much interest in learning about them. Although the story is fascinating and a breakthrough in studying our ancestry, whether or not they had a spoken language does not really directly effect us as humans. Why is there so much excitement over this issue? What fascinates us so much about the possibility of a Neanderthal language?
Links:
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=65818
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/20/nbrute120.xml
http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/22/stories/2007102255892000.htm
http://www.firstscience.com/home/perspectives/editorials/could-neanderthals-speak_38144.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86101.php
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/article/20071019/NEWS/710190374/-1/State
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003964988_language21.html
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
One Rotten Word Spoils the Bunch!
A recently proposed amendment in Kansas demonstrates how one word can affect an entire argument. An organization called "Cures without Cloning" proposed an amendment to modify current regulations on the cloning of human cells. The group's intent was to make cloning regulations stricter. However, after the ballot measure was proposed, members of the organization were infuriated because of the confusing and misleading way in which the proposal was worded.
The summary for the proposal claimed that it aimed "to repeal the current ban on human cloning or attempted cloning and to limit Missouri patients’ access to stem cell research, therapies and cures approved by voters in November 2006," to "criminalize and impose civil penalties for some currently allowed research, therapies and cures," and to prohibit "hospitals or other institutions from using public funds to conduct such research." The language use at the beginning of these statements is contradicting and obscures the purpose of the amendment. The members of Cures without Cloning desire to add to the current ban on cloning and to propose greater restrictions, moving toward an eventual ban on all types of cloning. The word "repeal" suggests that the group wants to get rid of the current human cloning ban rather than strengthen it. The other examples of wording are consistent with the goal of the group, but the first statement makes the purpose unclear. Although only one word seems out of place, that one word can change the context of the entire statement. The influence of word choice in portraying an idea or an argument is incredibly significant.
It is interesting to take into consideration the word usage in the article itself. The article uses the word "cloning" multiple times. Cloning tends to have a negative connotation, appearing unnatural and unhuman. Advocates of the cloning of human stem cells tend to refer to the process as "stem cell research". Stem cell research tends to have more positive imagery, suggesting a very scientific process with a goal at hand that may beneficial to human life. Word choice carries a personality with it, and a concept can be seen in a positive or negative light based on the word used to represent it.
Using word choice to influence a reader or listener is a skill that is omnipresent in the world today. Politicians use word choice to sway the opinions of the people and to make their arguments sound convincing and favorable. Organizations in favor of a certain belief or idea will use different words depending on which stance they take on an issue. The phrases "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are common examples of this. Both create positive images for each side of the abortion argument. Pro-Life advocates tend to emphasize the "murder" of an "unborn child", whereas Pro-Choice supporteres stress the importance of women's rights and a biological view of the "unborn child" as not yet human. And who is to say that those in favor of the abortion option aren not in favor of life and those who are against abortion are not in favor of choices? But the wording makes it appear so. Words can be intercchanged to convey one idea in several perspectives, and the connotation that a word carries can strongly influence the opinion of a person who reads or hears it.
Links:
The summary for the proposal claimed that it aimed "to repeal the current ban on human cloning or attempted cloning and to limit Missouri patients’ access to stem cell research, therapies and cures approved by voters in November 2006," to "criminalize and impose civil penalties for some currently allowed research, therapies and cures," and to prohibit "hospitals or other institutions from using public funds to conduct such research." The language use at the beginning of these statements is contradicting and obscures the purpose of the amendment. The members of Cures without Cloning desire to add to the current ban on cloning and to propose greater restrictions, moving toward an eventual ban on all types of cloning. The word "repeal" suggests that the group wants to get rid of the current human cloning ban rather than strengthen it. The other examples of wording are consistent with the goal of the group, but the first statement makes the purpose unclear. Although only one word seems out of place, that one word can change the context of the entire statement. The influence of word choice in portraying an idea or an argument is incredibly significant.
It is interesting to take into consideration the word usage in the article itself. The article uses the word "cloning" multiple times. Cloning tends to have a negative connotation, appearing unnatural and unhuman. Advocates of the cloning of human stem cells tend to refer to the process as "stem cell research". Stem cell research tends to have more positive imagery, suggesting a very scientific process with a goal at hand that may beneficial to human life. Word choice carries a personality with it, and a concept can be seen in a positive or negative light based on the word used to represent it.
Using word choice to influence a reader or listener is a skill that is omnipresent in the world today. Politicians use word choice to sway the opinions of the people and to make their arguments sound convincing and favorable. Organizations in favor of a certain belief or idea will use different words depending on which stance they take on an issue. The phrases "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are common examples of this. Both create positive images for each side of the abortion argument. Pro-Life advocates tend to emphasize the "murder" of an "unborn child", whereas Pro-Choice supporteres stress the importance of women's rights and a biological view of the "unborn child" as not yet human. And who is to say that those in favor of the abortion option aren not in favor of life and those who are against abortion are not in favor of choices? But the wording makes it appear so. Words can be intercchanged to convey one idea in several perspectives, and the connotation that a word carries can strongly influence the opinion of a person who reads or hears it.
Links:
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Influence of Language on Visual Preferences
A few days ago, a hitting trainer from New York came to my softball team's practice to work with us on visual training . His goal was to teach us ways in which we could improve our hitting skills by changing the way we look at and see the ball. One of the skills he mentioned a process called scanning. During scanning, the batter scans the field behind the pitcher before the pitch comes rather than just watching the pitcher the entire time. This method is supposed to help the batter to better focus on the ball because receptors in the eyes tend to tire out when looking at the same object for too long. The trainer told us that we would be able to see the ball more clearly if we did not stare at it the entire time during our at bat. He told us that we could scan in any direction we wanted, but said that about 99% of baseball and softball players scan from left to right across the field because that is the direction in which we read.
To me this was an interesting point because several languages are read not from left to right, but right to left or top to bottom. Baseball and softball are primarily American sports, but are also popular in several foreign countries. I thought about the famous Japanese baseball player Ichiro, and wondered if he would scan the field from right to left because that is the way Japanese is often read. Can the language we use really influence our preferences for visual information? Does reading a certain way make it easier for you to look at other objects in the same manner, such as from left to right or top to bottom? Would people who read left to right be more successful than those who read right to left at certain tasks that involve vision in a left to right direction?
In an eye tracking study done at the University of North Carolina, subjects were exposed to a variety of advertisements, each consisting of different layouts. Pictures and text were rearranged in different ways in order to examine which advertisements the subjects would spend the longest amount of time looking at, and to see which objects on the advertisement caught the attention of the participants primarily. The scientists hypothesized that the information on the left side of the page would be processed first, due to the western culture background of the participants.
Although the time fixated on pictures versus the time fixated on textual information did not vary between different layout types, the actual layout did influence which information the participants fixated on first. The results demonstrated that in opposition to predictions, the information on the right side of the page was processed first. Therefore both the pictures and the text were processed primarily in different layouts providing they were on the right side of the page. The study did not reveal a solid explanation for this finding, but mentioned that the fact that most participants preferred to view the objects on the right side of the page first could have been a result of circumstances other than language. Participants may have began scanning in the middle of the page, and the pictures and text that were on the right side may have overlapped to the center of the page, causing the participants to process them first.
In his book "Being Humans", Neil Roughley demonstrated that a culture's standard of beauty and visual preference for certain physical qualities in an individual are often products of the culture's sociocultural values and ideals. Roughley used the Baule culture as evidence to support this claim. The Baule are a West African people that are democratic and egalitarian. Because they are a primarily agricultural society, they value hard work. The Baule value fertility, good health, and personal hygiene. Above all, the Baule value community and conformity. They do not strive to be different from one another but similar to one another.
Part of the Baule culture involves carving beautiful statues. During a study, when the Baule were asked to choose which statues they believed were the most beautiful, they tended to select those that had average-like qualities. The choices made by the Baule reflect their primary cultural ideal-the need to conform and be a part of society. They looked down upon being different in fear of isolation from the group.
I am not personally familiar with the Baule language, but I wonder if their words at all reflect the importance of community. We have discussed how culture shapes language and how language shapes culture. Could specific words or phrases in the Baule language have positive and negative connotations that would cause certain traits to be favored over others? In our society, we tend to see words that set a person apart like "special" or "unique" as positive characteristics. In turn, we often prefer people who are special and unique. If words in the Baule language such as "average", "same", or "ordinary" are seen in a positive light , can they in turn create a visual preference for beauty that is unique to those who speak the Baule language.
This raises the never-ending chick and egg question of what influenced what. Did culture influence language and the connotations we have with certain words, or did certain words and the meaning that they carry shape and mold culture? Or do culture and language continuously work in a dynamic way, influencing one another simultaneously?
Links:
http://www.open-video.org/papers/hughes_civr_2003.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hp8fRboVi1MC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=western+culture+visual+preferences&source=web&ots=wI2BDVx_Uq&sig=A3L2-n2bz3HVlU6Fd3hQxHL1MZA#PPT1,M1
To me this was an interesting point because several languages are read not from left to right, but right to left or top to bottom. Baseball and softball are primarily American sports, but are also popular in several foreign countries. I thought about the famous Japanese baseball player Ichiro, and wondered if he would scan the field from right to left because that is the way Japanese is often read. Can the language we use really influence our preferences for visual information? Does reading a certain way make it easier for you to look at other objects in the same manner, such as from left to right or top to bottom? Would people who read left to right be more successful than those who read right to left at certain tasks that involve vision in a left to right direction?
In an eye tracking study done at the University of North Carolina, subjects were exposed to a variety of advertisements, each consisting of different layouts. Pictures and text were rearranged in different ways in order to examine which advertisements the subjects would spend the longest amount of time looking at, and to see which objects on the advertisement caught the attention of the participants primarily. The scientists hypothesized that the information on the left side of the page would be processed first, due to the western culture background of the participants.
Although the time fixated on pictures versus the time fixated on textual information did not vary between different layout types, the actual layout did influence which information the participants fixated on first. The results demonstrated that in opposition to predictions, the information on the right side of the page was processed first. Therefore both the pictures and the text were processed primarily in different layouts providing they were on the right side of the page. The study did not reveal a solid explanation for this finding, but mentioned that the fact that most participants preferred to view the objects on the right side of the page first could have been a result of circumstances other than language. Participants may have began scanning in the middle of the page, and the pictures and text that were on the right side may have overlapped to the center of the page, causing the participants to process them first.
In his book "Being Humans", Neil Roughley demonstrated that a culture's standard of beauty and visual preference for certain physical qualities in an individual are often products of the culture's sociocultural values and ideals. Roughley used the Baule culture as evidence to support this claim. The Baule are a West African people that are democratic and egalitarian. Because they are a primarily agricultural society, they value hard work. The Baule value fertility, good health, and personal hygiene. Above all, the Baule value community and conformity. They do not strive to be different from one another but similar to one another.
Part of the Baule culture involves carving beautiful statues. During a study, when the Baule were asked to choose which statues they believed were the most beautiful, they tended to select those that had average-like qualities. The choices made by the Baule reflect their primary cultural ideal-the need to conform and be a part of society. They looked down upon being different in fear of isolation from the group.
I am not personally familiar with the Baule language, but I wonder if their words at all reflect the importance of community. We have discussed how culture shapes language and how language shapes culture. Could specific words or phrases in the Baule language have positive and negative connotations that would cause certain traits to be favored over others? In our society, we tend to see words that set a person apart like "special" or "unique" as positive characteristics. In turn, we often prefer people who are special and unique. If words in the Baule language such as "average", "same", or "ordinary" are seen in a positive light , can they in turn create a visual preference for beauty that is unique to those who speak the Baule language.
This raises the never-ending chick and egg question of what influenced what. Did culture influence language and the connotations we have with certain words, or did certain words and the meaning that they carry shape and mold culture? Or do culture and language continuously work in a dynamic way, influencing one another simultaneously?
Links:
http://www.open-video.org/papers/hughes_civr_2003.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hp8fRboVi1MC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=western+culture+visual+preferences&source=web&ots=wI2BDVx_Uq&sig=A3L2-n2bz3HVlU6Fd3hQxHL1MZA#PPT1,M1
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Native Languages-Our Comfort Zone
In the past few months major software companies have been "Arabising" their products by creating them in the Arabic language. This finding is not so surprising when considering that two and a half percent of all internet users globally speak Arabic as a first language, making it the tenth most common internet language. Wael Abdulal, a sales business development manager at the Cisco corporation, claims that Arabised versions of software are not just a luxury, but are crucial to business in the Middle East. Despite the fact that English tends to be the worldwide language of business, many businesses in the Middle East operate in Arabic. Abdulal claims that "Just because people speak English doesn't mean that they're comfortable speaking English-- they're probably much more comfortable operating in their own language." When people who are bilingual have a choice, they prefer to speak and read in their native language, regardless of whether or not they are fluent in English.
The concept that a person's native language serves as a type of comfort zone to him or her has been brought up several times during class. We have discussed cultural communities in the United States that tend to avoid the English language by creating their own small corner in the world. Professor Boroditsky mentioned that when traveling in a foreign country where one is not an expert at the language, the most relieving feeling is finding someone who speaks the same native language. It does not necessarily matter whether the person met is a good person, or even a friend. Just the connection shared through verbal communication suffices to create a positive image and a feeling of comfort and relaxation. In Crystal's blog, she mentioned that her mother prefers to go to doctors in Mexico rather than ones in the United States because proper communication is of utmost significance. Right now in my Japanese class, I often feel uncomfortable because I am not sure of exactly what is going on, and do not understand everything. Sometimes when we read aloud and I cannot go at the same speed as the other students, I find myself pausing because I am embarassed to stand out and look inferior. Our native language is a part of us, and stepping outside of its use can cause stress and discomfort.
What is it about language that is so powerful in connecting human beings to one another? In a sense the comfort language brings may be the confidence that stems from understanding exactly what a person is saying and what is going on in a situation. It is easy to get flustered and to feel incompetent or insecure when you are unable to understand or communicate with someone. As humans we prefer to feel comfortable and safe rather than embarassed by taking risks and making ourselves vulnerable. We want to excel at all that we do and avoid situations in which our performances are lacking.
Language also can create a sentiment of trust between two people. In one of my earlier blogs, I mentioned that when volunteering at a school's registration, the parents (who mainly were Spanish speakers) avoided me and would not make eye contact with me. But the moment I opened my mouth and spoke Spanish, their faces lit up, they spoke rapidly, and they asked questions. They knew nothing about me other than the fact that I spoke Spanish, but that was enough for them to trust me. It seems strange because when considering trust, language does not seem to be an important factor. We generally see trust as depending on how well you know a person, how genuine and dependable that person is, and whether or not they are a good person. Yet this strong bond of trust can develop through a simple conversation, especially when we are in situations where the conversation is rare (like when we are in a foreign country).
This also brings forth the following question: is there an evolutionary significance to having language be a comfort zone? Perhaps our ancestors had a better survival rate when they only trusted those who spoke the same language. Strangers speaking other languages might have been potentially dangerous, and avoiding them in Darwinian terms enhanced the chance to survive, reproduce, and perpetuate their genes. Qualities such as being afraid of spiders and snakes have been found to have evolutionary roots. Is it possible that a fear of unknown languages has an evolutionary origin as well?
Links:
Conway, Brid-Aine (2007). "Mind Your Language." Retrieved from http://www.itp.net/news/501726-mind-your-language on October 10, 2007.
Crytal's blog: http://crystalesp.blogspot.com/
The concept that a person's native language serves as a type of comfort zone to him or her has been brought up several times during class. We have discussed cultural communities in the United States that tend to avoid the English language by creating their own small corner in the world. Professor Boroditsky mentioned that when traveling in a foreign country where one is not an expert at the language, the most relieving feeling is finding someone who speaks the same native language. It does not necessarily matter whether the person met is a good person, or even a friend. Just the connection shared through verbal communication suffices to create a positive image and a feeling of comfort and relaxation. In Crystal's blog, she mentioned that her mother prefers to go to doctors in Mexico rather than ones in the United States because proper communication is of utmost significance. Right now in my Japanese class, I often feel uncomfortable because I am not sure of exactly what is going on, and do not understand everything. Sometimes when we read aloud and I cannot go at the same speed as the other students, I find myself pausing because I am embarassed to stand out and look inferior. Our native language is a part of us, and stepping outside of its use can cause stress and discomfort.
What is it about language that is so powerful in connecting human beings to one another? In a sense the comfort language brings may be the confidence that stems from understanding exactly what a person is saying and what is going on in a situation. It is easy to get flustered and to feel incompetent or insecure when you are unable to understand or communicate with someone. As humans we prefer to feel comfortable and safe rather than embarassed by taking risks and making ourselves vulnerable. We want to excel at all that we do and avoid situations in which our performances are lacking.
Language also can create a sentiment of trust between two people. In one of my earlier blogs, I mentioned that when volunteering at a school's registration, the parents (who mainly were Spanish speakers) avoided me and would not make eye contact with me. But the moment I opened my mouth and spoke Spanish, their faces lit up, they spoke rapidly, and they asked questions. They knew nothing about me other than the fact that I spoke Spanish, but that was enough for them to trust me. It seems strange because when considering trust, language does not seem to be an important factor. We generally see trust as depending on how well you know a person, how genuine and dependable that person is, and whether or not they are a good person. Yet this strong bond of trust can develop through a simple conversation, especially when we are in situations where the conversation is rare (like when we are in a foreign country).
This also brings forth the following question: is there an evolutionary significance to having language be a comfort zone? Perhaps our ancestors had a better survival rate when they only trusted those who spoke the same language. Strangers speaking other languages might have been potentially dangerous, and avoiding them in Darwinian terms enhanced the chance to survive, reproduce, and perpetuate their genes. Qualities such as being afraid of spiders and snakes have been found to have evolutionary roots. Is it possible that a fear of unknown languages has an evolutionary origin as well?
Links:
Conway, Brid-Aine (2007). "Mind Your Language." Retrieved from http://www.itp.net/news/501726-mind-your-language on October 10, 2007.
Crytal's blog: http://crystalesp.blogspot.com/
Saturday, October 6, 2007
The Difficulties of Learning Language as an Adult
In an excerpt from the novel "How I Learned English" by Tom Miller, Miller describes the difficulties in learning languages later in life. He describes how his wife attended ESL class for the first time, and that when she came home she answered, "Oh, really? That's interesting" to everything he asked in English. Because of the high demand for English in the United States, many people, like Miller's wife, take English classes to learn the language. However, learning languages as an adult has been found to be much more of a struggle than learning languages during childhood.
Scientists have found that children and adults actually process language in different areas of the brain. Children use a part of the brain that processes information unconsciously and automatically. This area of the brain functions in motor skills that humans do not have to be actively thinking about while using. Adults, however, must store information in other regions of the brain when learning a new language. Because of this difference in processing, adults are forced to translate a new language in their minds before they can process it, whereas children tend to think automatically in the new language. Research suggests that the cut-off age for this change in language processing is approximately eighteen years old, but can vary from individual to individual. The research suggests that despite how well an adult knows a language, if the language is learned in adulthood, it will be processed much differently than if it is learned in childhood or early adolescence.
In reference to my earlier blog, learning a language at a very young age can be especially beneficial. Children who have parents that speak two languages from the child's birth are at an advantage in language learning, because they will retain recognition of phonemes from two different languages, rather than forgetting the phonemes of one of the languages.
This research raises some questions. What determines the individual age variations in how language is processed? Does processing of language change due to physical age, or environmental and cultural influences with language? What happens specifically in the brain to change the pathway of language processing? Are there ways to teach language differently so that for adults it can be stored in a part of the brain that will process it more automatically instead of through translation? As a society, do we have a responsibility to teach our children languages at younger ages so that the learning process is facilitated? I am also interested in the specific areas of the brain that are responsible for the distinct processing of language. How do these areas of the brain function in language acquisition?
On a personal note.......
I am familiar with three languages. English, as my native language, is logically the one that is most natural for me to use. I began learning Spanish when I was twelve years old. I have been taking Japanese classes for about two weeks. I mentioned in an earlier blog how interesting it was that now when I try to think of a word in Japanese that I don't know, I automatically revert to the Spanish word rather than the English word. I had lunch with my advisor last week, and I spoke with her about this phenomenon. She called it "interference". She said that because I learned Spanish later in my childhood, I had it stored in a special place in my brain that I used when I remembered Spanish words. Now that I am learning Japanese, she told me that I am storing information about Japanese in that same area of the brain. So when I look for a Japanese word that I have not learned yet, there is nothing in that space for the word in Japanese, but there is a word in there for Spanish, which is why my mind reverts to Spanish rather than English. I thought it was an interesting concept....I am sure that we will probably learn about it in this class (I actually think someone mentioned something about interference during introductions)!
Links:
Miller, Tom (2007)."How I Learned English." Retrieved on October 6, 2007 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14692405
Thompson, Paul (2003). "Learning Language." Lab of Neuro-Imaging & Brain Mapping Division. Retrieved on October 6, 2007 from http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/learning_language.html
Shiver, Elaine (2000). "Brain Development and Mastery of Language in the Young Years." Retrieved on October 6, 2007 from http://www.parentinginformation.org/braindevelopment.htm
Scientists have found that children and adults actually process language in different areas of the brain. Children use a part of the brain that processes information unconsciously and automatically. This area of the brain functions in motor skills that humans do not have to be actively thinking about while using. Adults, however, must store information in other regions of the brain when learning a new language. Because of this difference in processing, adults are forced to translate a new language in their minds before they can process it, whereas children tend to think automatically in the new language. Research suggests that the cut-off age for this change in language processing is approximately eighteen years old, but can vary from individual to individual. The research suggests that despite how well an adult knows a language, if the language is learned in adulthood, it will be processed much differently than if it is learned in childhood or early adolescence.
In reference to my earlier blog, learning a language at a very young age can be especially beneficial. Children who have parents that speak two languages from the child's birth are at an advantage in language learning, because they will retain recognition of phonemes from two different languages, rather than forgetting the phonemes of one of the languages.
This research raises some questions. What determines the individual age variations in how language is processed? Does processing of language change due to physical age, or environmental and cultural influences with language? What happens specifically in the brain to change the pathway of language processing? Are there ways to teach language differently so that for adults it can be stored in a part of the brain that will process it more automatically instead of through translation? As a society, do we have a responsibility to teach our children languages at younger ages so that the learning process is facilitated? I am also interested in the specific areas of the brain that are responsible for the distinct processing of language. How do these areas of the brain function in language acquisition?
On a personal note.......
I am familiar with three languages. English, as my native language, is logically the one that is most natural for me to use. I began learning Spanish when I was twelve years old. I have been taking Japanese classes for about two weeks. I mentioned in an earlier blog how interesting it was that now when I try to think of a word in Japanese that I don't know, I automatically revert to the Spanish word rather than the English word. I had lunch with my advisor last week, and I spoke with her about this phenomenon. She called it "interference". She said that because I learned Spanish later in my childhood, I had it stored in a special place in my brain that I used when I remembered Spanish words. Now that I am learning Japanese, she told me that I am storing information about Japanese in that same area of the brain. So when I look for a Japanese word that I have not learned yet, there is nothing in that space for the word in Japanese, but there is a word in there for Spanish, which is why my mind reverts to Spanish rather than English. I thought it was an interesting concept....I am sure that we will probably learn about it in this class (I actually think someone mentioned something about interference during introductions)!
Links:
Miller, Tom (2007)."How I Learned English." Retrieved on October 6, 2007 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14692405
Thompson, Paul (2003). "Learning Language." Lab of Neuro-Imaging & Brain Mapping Division. Retrieved on October 6, 2007 from http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/learning_language.html
Shiver, Elaine (2000). "Brain Development and Mastery of Language in the Young Years." Retrieved on October 6, 2007 from http://www.parentinginformation.org/braindevelopment.htm
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Words...Why are they so powerful?
We've all heard the saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." But I think we would all agree that this well-known phrase is more idealistic than it is a reality. Language is powerful, and words can evoke strong emotions that are difficult to control.
This seemed to be the case at an international cricket game last Tuesday between India and Australia. Harbhajan Singh, a member of the Indian cricket team, became very upset after he was dismissed from the game. He claimed that the members of the Australian team had used "vulgar language" with him, acting in a very personal and arrogant manner. The tension between the teams became so strong that the cricket umpire had to separate the enraged Singh from the Australians in fear that a fight would occur.
This article brings forth the question: Why are words so powerful? In a sense, they are just phonemes strung together. Words are simply noises for which we as the speakers and listeners create meaning. They have no intrinsic meaning, but rather acquire the meaning that is given to them by those who use them.
Why is it that words can cause such emotional pulls? For Singh, was his anger just a result of the words he heard and the meaning he derived from them? Or did his anger arise from the way in which they were said-the speaker's tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures? Can words alone be that powerful, or does it take a combination of several aspects of the language to evoke strong emotions? Do human beings really have the capacity to simply ignore language that is hurtful, or is there some type of innate reaction to language and its meaning that humans have developed over the years as langauge has evolved?
Author Michael Lee claims that relationships between people can be greatly influenced by the words that they use in communicating and solving problems. He believes it is extremely important to "filter out" the good words from the bad words, in order to always use positive phrases instead of negative phrases. He emphasizes, for example, the difference between calling someone "slim" or "thin". The connotation of the word can cause the listener to interpret the message the speaker is trying to convey differently than the speaker intended. Words that suggest discouragement or failure often upset the listener. Lee stresses the importance of word choice in building strong relationships. He definitely believes that words can hurt others and that the way in which they are said can change the way one would normally interpret them.
I definitely believe that words are not just words; they convey much more meaning than just the sounds they contain or the letters that spell them. There is something deeper within each word. Perhaps it is only something that a speaker of the language can understand, but at times it seems that the meaning of words can be understood without even knowing what was said. The way in which a word or phrase is said gives it it's own unique personality. A single word can have multiple meanings, and the context in which it is said and the manner in which it is said has an enormous impact on the connotations that it carries.
So perhaps it is not so much the word itself, but how we as human beings interpret the word, the way in which it is said (or the circumstances it is said in), and the connection that the word has to our personal feelings and well-being. We as humans cannot really "ignore" words, because for us they have a much deeper meaning. The message we get from them and the way that we interpret them depends on our background and personal experiences, our current mood and feelings, and the context in which we hear them.
A word represents the mind and thoughts of an individual; it is the way in which we voice our innermost thoughts and beliefs. Considering this, a simple phrase can be a window to the mind, and suggests real feelings, judgments and emotions. The simple sounds that words are made up of carry such a bigger meaning.
It is interesting to me, however, that the ever-famous saying still seems to be omnipresent. I plan to tell my children that words do hurt, that it is perfectly acceptable to feel sad or offended by the words of another person, and that they should do everything in their power to choose them wisely so that they do not hurt others. It is a nice idea though... I wish words could never hurt. I think the world would have far less problems if this truly was the case.
Links:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/indian-spinner-slams-vulgar-aussie-language/2007/10/03/1191091193080.html
http://selfhelp.articlesarchive.net/building-solid-relationships-using-the-power-of-words.html
This seemed to be the case at an international cricket game last Tuesday between India and Australia. Harbhajan Singh, a member of the Indian cricket team, became very upset after he was dismissed from the game. He claimed that the members of the Australian team had used "vulgar language" with him, acting in a very personal and arrogant manner. The tension between the teams became so strong that the cricket umpire had to separate the enraged Singh from the Australians in fear that a fight would occur.
This article brings forth the question: Why are words so powerful? In a sense, they are just phonemes strung together. Words are simply noises for which we as the speakers and listeners create meaning. They have no intrinsic meaning, but rather acquire the meaning that is given to them by those who use them.
Why is it that words can cause such emotional pulls? For Singh, was his anger just a result of the words he heard and the meaning he derived from them? Or did his anger arise from the way in which they were said-the speaker's tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures? Can words alone be that powerful, or does it take a combination of several aspects of the language to evoke strong emotions? Do human beings really have the capacity to simply ignore language that is hurtful, or is there some type of innate reaction to language and its meaning that humans have developed over the years as langauge has evolved?
Author Michael Lee claims that relationships between people can be greatly influenced by the words that they use in communicating and solving problems. He believes it is extremely important to "filter out" the good words from the bad words, in order to always use positive phrases instead of negative phrases. He emphasizes, for example, the difference between calling someone "slim" or "thin". The connotation of the word can cause the listener to interpret the message the speaker is trying to convey differently than the speaker intended. Words that suggest discouragement or failure often upset the listener. Lee stresses the importance of word choice in building strong relationships. He definitely believes that words can hurt others and that the way in which they are said can change the way one would normally interpret them.
I definitely believe that words are not just words; they convey much more meaning than just the sounds they contain or the letters that spell them. There is something deeper within each word. Perhaps it is only something that a speaker of the language can understand, but at times it seems that the meaning of words can be understood without even knowing what was said. The way in which a word or phrase is said gives it it's own unique personality. A single word can have multiple meanings, and the context in which it is said and the manner in which it is said has an enormous impact on the connotations that it carries.
So perhaps it is not so much the word itself, but how we as human beings interpret the word, the way in which it is said (or the circumstances it is said in), and the connection that the word has to our personal feelings and well-being. We as humans cannot really "ignore" words, because for us they have a much deeper meaning. The message we get from them and the way that we interpret them depends on our background and personal experiences, our current mood and feelings, and the context in which we hear them.
A word represents the mind and thoughts of an individual; it is the way in which we voice our innermost thoughts and beliefs. Considering this, a simple phrase can be a window to the mind, and suggests real feelings, judgments and emotions. The simple sounds that words are made up of carry such a bigger meaning.
It is interesting to me, however, that the ever-famous saying still seems to be omnipresent. I plan to tell my children that words do hurt, that it is perfectly acceptable to feel sad or offended by the words of another person, and that they should do everything in their power to choose them wisely so that they do not hurt others. It is a nice idea though... I wish words could never hurt. I think the world would have far less problems if this truly was the case.
Links:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/indian-spinner-slams-vulgar-aussie-language/2007/10/03/1191091193080.html
http://selfhelp.articlesarchive.net/building-solid-relationships-using-the-power-of-words.html
Monday, October 1, 2007
Does Language have a Critical Period?
Scientists have understood the importance of "critical periods" in the lives of organisms ever since Konrad Z. Lorenz discovered the need for geese to go through filial imprinting shortly after hatching. A critical period is generally defined as a specific time in an organism's life in which an organism must learn a certain behavior or be exposed to particular environmental influences in order to develop properly. Sometimes a critical period is described more loosely as an optimal time in an organism's development where a specific skill is most easily obtained. Although the results of Lorenz's experiment validated the concept that geese have a critical period for imprinting from their parents, the concept of critical periods in human beings has been a topic of debate for several years. Critical periods have been discovered in several human systems, but a topic still argued over is the presence of a critical period in language development. The study of language brings forth several questions about whether or not there exists a necessary or preferable time in human life for the acquisition of language.
A recent event in Hong Kong may provide some insight into whether or not exposure to language during certain years can significantly impact human language use. Last Tuesday, a mother of four children was arrested for child neglect. Her children had been beaten, were malnourished, had problems with development, were extremely underweight, and had never had the opportunity to go to school. The sons were found to only speak "baby language" despite the fact that they were aged three to seven years.
The language impairment of the children raises several questions. Were the children unable to speak properly because they had not been exposed to language in school or with their family? Would this damage be permanent, irrelevant to their future success, or impair future language development from occurring successfully? Would developmental problems be worse for the younger children or the older children. Did any of the children miss the possible critical period for language and would future learning of language and language related knowledge be a struggle for them?
A famous story that addresses the concept of a possible critical period for language is the story of Victor, the "Wild Boy of Averyon." Victor was found in the early 1800s in France. He had appeared to have lived in the wild for a long time and could not speak. Despite efforts to "civilize" Victor and to teach him to speak, little success occurred. Victor's story also brings forth important questions about language. He most likely had not been exposed to language in his childhood because of living in the wilderness. If a person does not hear, speak, or learn language as a child, is it impossible to learn it later in life because of never having been exposed? In Victor's situation, this seemed to be the case. But although stories like that of Victor may seem to support a potential critical period for language development, it is also important to recognize that other circumstances may have been involved. Most historians assume that Victor had been ostracized by his family and abandoned. Several historians and psychologists suggest that Victor was autistic, a condition that may have served as a reason for his family to abandon him. If Victor was autistic, other factors may have come into play, and his impaired language development may have occurred for reasons other than a lack of exposure to language as a child. Victor's story is interesting because no one can really be sure why he could not speak or learn to speak. The story was documented, but in the early 19th century, nothing was done to really discover why he had problems with language. It would be interesting to examine a modern day "Victor" in the presence of new ideas, experiments, and technology. More modern studies on other "feral" children have demonstrated that there indeed seems to be some type of important time before children hit puberty in which language needs to be acquired. Without exposure to language during that critical period, humans tend to be unable to communicate sufficiently.
Scientists seem to agree that unlike many animals (such as birds) who can communicate with another based on sounds known innately, humans need extensive experience with language in order to learn a language. Early experience has also been found to be important. Babies who are deaf generally do not begin "babbling" (producing speech-like sounds), unless they are exposed to a type of sign language that allows them to babble with their hands. Feedback that children can hear and understand seems to play a significant role in the development of language. Deprivation of this feedback can put a stop to language development (as in the deaf children), and make future communication difficult. Another aspect of early experience in learning languages relates to the learning of a native language. As babies, humans can distinguish between all types of phonemes. However, as a baby is exposed to a certain language, the phonemes not associated with that language tend to fade out, and the baby only remembers those associated with its own language. If the same human tries to learn a language in the future that incorporates the forgotten phonemes, it is often difficult to produce and understand the sounds. Studies of language acquisition in babies support the concept that a critical period for language exists.
It appears that the early stages in human development provide important resources that aid in language development. But is the so-called critical period for language absolutely necessary for language acquisition, or just a preferable time in which language is acquired most efficiently? Are human beings who miss out on this critical period destined to a life of failure with languages and communications or can they in fact undergo language development throughout adulthood and the rest of their lives? Adults seem to learn new aspects of language everyday, but could they do that without the basis of language knowledge learned in childhood? If there is a critical period, is it a very specific time period (as seen with animal experiments), or does it vary from human to human, language to language, and culture to culture? Research seems to be supporting the presence of some type of critical period in learning language, but whether the critical period is a time that is absolutely necessary (as in the case of the geese) or whether it is a time of facilitated language development is still being examined.
Links I used:
"Sons 'Speak Baby Language'." http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2189820,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)
"The Development of Language. A Critical Period in Humans." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?indexed=google&rid=neurosci.section.1651
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=victor
A recent event in Hong Kong may provide some insight into whether or not exposure to language during certain years can significantly impact human language use. Last Tuesday, a mother of four children was arrested for child neglect. Her children had been beaten, were malnourished, had problems with development, were extremely underweight, and had never had the opportunity to go to school. The sons were found to only speak "baby language" despite the fact that they were aged three to seven years.
The language impairment of the children raises several questions. Were the children unable to speak properly because they had not been exposed to language in school or with their family? Would this damage be permanent, irrelevant to their future success, or impair future language development from occurring successfully? Would developmental problems be worse for the younger children or the older children. Did any of the children miss the possible critical period for language and would future learning of language and language related knowledge be a struggle for them?
A famous story that addresses the concept of a possible critical period for language is the story of Victor, the "Wild Boy of Averyon." Victor was found in the early 1800s in France. He had appeared to have lived in the wild for a long time and could not speak. Despite efforts to "civilize" Victor and to teach him to speak, little success occurred. Victor's story also brings forth important questions about language. He most likely had not been exposed to language in his childhood because of living in the wilderness. If a person does not hear, speak, or learn language as a child, is it impossible to learn it later in life because of never having been exposed? In Victor's situation, this seemed to be the case. But although stories like that of Victor may seem to support a potential critical period for language development, it is also important to recognize that other circumstances may have been involved. Most historians assume that Victor had been ostracized by his family and abandoned. Several historians and psychologists suggest that Victor was autistic, a condition that may have served as a reason for his family to abandon him. If Victor was autistic, other factors may have come into play, and his impaired language development may have occurred for reasons other than a lack of exposure to language as a child. Victor's story is interesting because no one can really be sure why he could not speak or learn to speak. The story was documented, but in the early 19th century, nothing was done to really discover why he had problems with language. It would be interesting to examine a modern day "Victor" in the presence of new ideas, experiments, and technology. More modern studies on other "feral" children have demonstrated that there indeed seems to be some type of important time before children hit puberty in which language needs to be acquired. Without exposure to language during that critical period, humans tend to be unable to communicate sufficiently.
Scientists seem to agree that unlike many animals (such as birds) who can communicate with another based on sounds known innately, humans need extensive experience with language in order to learn a language. Early experience has also been found to be important. Babies who are deaf generally do not begin "babbling" (producing speech-like sounds), unless they are exposed to a type of sign language that allows them to babble with their hands. Feedback that children can hear and understand seems to play a significant role in the development of language. Deprivation of this feedback can put a stop to language development (as in the deaf children), and make future communication difficult. Another aspect of early experience in learning languages relates to the learning of a native language. As babies, humans can distinguish between all types of phonemes. However, as a baby is exposed to a certain language, the phonemes not associated with that language tend to fade out, and the baby only remembers those associated with its own language. If the same human tries to learn a language in the future that incorporates the forgotten phonemes, it is often difficult to produce and understand the sounds. Studies of language acquisition in babies support the concept that a critical period for language exists.
It appears that the early stages in human development provide important resources that aid in language development. But is the so-called critical period for language absolutely necessary for language acquisition, or just a preferable time in which language is acquired most efficiently? Are human beings who miss out on this critical period destined to a life of failure with languages and communications or can they in fact undergo language development throughout adulthood and the rest of their lives? Adults seem to learn new aspects of language everyday, but could they do that without the basis of language knowledge learned in childhood? If there is a critical period, is it a very specific time period (as seen with animal experiments), or does it vary from human to human, language to language, and culture to culture? Research seems to be supporting the presence of some type of critical period in learning language, but whether the critical period is a time that is absolutely necessary (as in the case of the geese) or whether it is a time of facilitated language development is still being examined.
Links I used:
"Sons 'Speak Baby Language'." http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2189820,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)
"The Development of Language. A Critical Period in Humans." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?indexed=google&rid=neurosci.section.1651
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=victor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
