Estonian Education Minister Tonis Lukas has announced a "Language Beauty Contest" that will take place to celebrate the 90th birthday of Estonia in February. The goal is to find the worlds "prettiest language" by examining the most beautiful sentences from different languages. According to story, there once was a world championship of languages. Estonia lost, taking second place to Italian, which won with the phrase, "soida tasa ule silla," meaning "go slowly over the bridge."
Estonia is different than most European languages, and is a member of the Finno-Ugric group of languages. Only about 1.1 million people worldwide speak Estonian, the majority of which live in Estonia, Finland, and Russia. Historically, the Estonian language holds a special significance to its people, as preserving the language played a significant role in opposition to foreign rule by Russia in the 19th century.
Although Education Minister Lukas claims that "we're pleased to turn to other nations with a friendly call to check how our language sounds to others now," I question how it is possible to judge the beauty of a language. We've all heard the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." It seems that some humans have agreed that certain languages, such as French and Italian, have a certain grace that make them beautiful, as opposed to languages such as German (sorry Phillip :(!) and Chinese. But what really makes a language beautiful?
Does a person's native language influence their perception of what constitutes beauty in a language? Are those who learn romance languages as their native languages more likely to be biased towards preferring romance languages? Or is there some inherent property in humans that causes preferences for certain sounds. I believe that Professor Boroditsky mentioned that humans tend to have a preference for rhythm in sounds (such as in music). Studies have shown that rhythm can help people to learn languages more easily. Do languages that seem to flow more appeal to humans? Standards of physical beauty differ from culture to culture and throughout time. Fads of what is beautiful come and go, and the standards of beauty are always changing. Does the same thing happen to language?
Unfortunately, there have not been a great deal of experiments studying whether people perceive languages as beautiful or not (at least any that can be easily googled for the sake of the blog), and I assume that it would be a very difficult issue to create a legitimate scientific experiment on. Scientists have noted in some experiments that newborns and older babies in monolingual families tend to prefer their native language over unfamiliar languages. I am curious to know how most adults feel when they have been exposed to several languages.
On some random websites I found comments about opinions of which languages are beautiful. The majority of the comments I read favored their own language. They seemed to favor their native language not so much because of how it sounded, but because of its uniqueness and the personality that it carried. I feel that this makes sense because our native language possesses a very personal and special meaning for us. It is more than just pleasant sounding; it is symbolic or our histories and our identities. In addition to advocates of native languages, there were also many responses admiring the beauty of the romance languages.
So I think we should have a language "beauty contest" for our introductory seminar. What language do you guys think is the most beautiful (of the languages that you are familiar with) and why? Also, I would love to hear ideas about possible theories of why we prefer certain languages.
Links:
1. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i2MtyJZSeEWNwHls0ZevOINjaWHQ
2. http://www.physik.uni-bielefeld.de/complexity/ramus.pdf
3. http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet? prog=normal&id=JASMAN000115000005002505000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes (The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America -- May 2004 -- Volume 115, Issue 5, p. 2505)
4. http://help.berberber.com/forum79/14072-most-beautiful-language-world.html
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Choosing Between Languages
In class we have been discussing how we use the different languages that we know. Some of us speak our native language at home, while speaking English as school. Some of us only use a language other than English in our foreign language classes. Some of us speak a mixture of two languages. We have established that depending who we are talking to and what type of environment we are in, we speak differently. Whether we speak in a different tone, use different word choice, or speak in an entirely different language, the context of the situation determines what type of language we will utilize.
In our home environments and in school it usually is pretty clear which language should be chosen. But in day to day life and random situations, it can be extremely difficult to know which language is the appropriate one to speak. Maria Carreira, a native Spanish speaker from Cuba who also speaks English, and an expert of the use of Spanish in the United States, finds herself facing this problem constantly. For Carreira, it comes down to the question "When to use inglés and when to speak Spanish?". This "language-etiquette" can be tricky, and if the appropriate language is not used, can lead to awkward situations.
For example, when ordering at a taco stand, Carreira began to order in Spanish. Upon seeing the "bluest eyes" of the man working there, she automatically switched to speaking English, assuming that he was not capable of communicating in Spanish. He responded in English, but Carreira later realized her mistake when she saw that he had been taking orders in Spanish.
Choosing what language to speak in can be tricky. For instance, if someone is struggling to speak in English, it could be seen as rude to speak to him in Spanish, because it is acknowledging that the person's English abilities are incompetent. It is almost like giving up on the person's abilities in English. On the other hand the person could also be rejoiced that his or her native language is understood and prefer to speak in it. In addition, avoiding speaking in Spanish in an attempt to not hurt the feelings of a person could upset the person if he or she is extremely proud of his or her heritage.
The ultimate goal of language-etiquette is to make the person one is conversing with feel comfortable. Generally, the "which language" decision is made quickly, based on physical judgments. The bilingual speaker takes into account age, social status, clothing, skin color, eye color, hair color, and name (if available) to determine which language is more appropriate.
I personally have had several experiences in which I struggled to choose the polite language to speak. From speaking with workers who have been in my neighborhood, to maids in hotel rooms, to parents of children that I work with, it is really difficult to know which language to speak. I am generally afraid to speak Spanish because I do not want to offend the other person (and because I fear that I will not be fully competent in an all-Spanish conversation), but I do not want to be rude when speaking English if the person clearly does not understand what I am trying to say. I have had experiences speaking Spanish to others in which the other person became extremely excited and trusting because I could share the language, but I have also had experiences where the other person was hesitant to speak in Spanish and seemed to feel disrespected.
The decision becomes even more difficult when appearances are deceiving. Judging someone to see which language he or she prefers may be successful most of the time, but every once in a while it can cause an even more awkward situation. Going up to someone who looks Hispanic and immediately speaking Spanish can result in embarassment, especially if the person does not know any Spanish. In reality, our stereotypes of what a person who speaks a certain language will look like fall short. There is a student on my dorm floor who is black and has an English accent. I know that the first time I talked to her I was extremely surprised because I did not expect her to speak that way. It is similar to when I see a caucasian speaking a language like Chinese or Japanese. Our physical judgments can only carry us so far in determining whether a person actually will speak a language.
Considering the large degree of billingualism in our class, I am curious to know how you guys judge the situation when you are in it. What determines which language you choose to speak? What methods have been the most/least successful? How can we avoid these awkward situations and offending others?
Links:
1. Silverstein, Stuart. "Tongue Twister: English or Español?" La Times. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004020933_etiquette18.html on November 24, 2007.
In our home environments and in school it usually is pretty clear which language should be chosen. But in day to day life and random situations, it can be extremely difficult to know which language is the appropriate one to speak. Maria Carreira, a native Spanish speaker from Cuba who also speaks English, and an expert of the use of Spanish in the United States, finds herself facing this problem constantly. For Carreira, it comes down to the question "When to use inglés and when to speak Spanish?". This "language-etiquette" can be tricky, and if the appropriate language is not used, can lead to awkward situations.
For example, when ordering at a taco stand, Carreira began to order in Spanish. Upon seeing the "bluest eyes" of the man working there, she automatically switched to speaking English, assuming that he was not capable of communicating in Spanish. He responded in English, but Carreira later realized her mistake when she saw that he had been taking orders in Spanish.
Choosing what language to speak in can be tricky. For instance, if someone is struggling to speak in English, it could be seen as rude to speak to him in Spanish, because it is acknowledging that the person's English abilities are incompetent. It is almost like giving up on the person's abilities in English. On the other hand the person could also be rejoiced that his or her native language is understood and prefer to speak in it. In addition, avoiding speaking in Spanish in an attempt to not hurt the feelings of a person could upset the person if he or she is extremely proud of his or her heritage.
The ultimate goal of language-etiquette is to make the person one is conversing with feel comfortable. Generally, the "which language" decision is made quickly, based on physical judgments. The bilingual speaker takes into account age, social status, clothing, skin color, eye color, hair color, and name (if available) to determine which language is more appropriate.
I personally have had several experiences in which I struggled to choose the polite language to speak. From speaking with workers who have been in my neighborhood, to maids in hotel rooms, to parents of children that I work with, it is really difficult to know which language to speak. I am generally afraid to speak Spanish because I do not want to offend the other person (and because I fear that I will not be fully competent in an all-Spanish conversation), but I do not want to be rude when speaking English if the person clearly does not understand what I am trying to say. I have had experiences speaking Spanish to others in which the other person became extremely excited and trusting because I could share the language, but I have also had experiences where the other person was hesitant to speak in Spanish and seemed to feel disrespected.
The decision becomes even more difficult when appearances are deceiving. Judging someone to see which language he or she prefers may be successful most of the time, but every once in a while it can cause an even more awkward situation. Going up to someone who looks Hispanic and immediately speaking Spanish can result in embarassment, especially if the person does not know any Spanish. In reality, our stereotypes of what a person who speaks a certain language will look like fall short. There is a student on my dorm floor who is black and has an English accent. I know that the first time I talked to her I was extremely surprised because I did not expect her to speak that way. It is similar to when I see a caucasian speaking a language like Chinese or Japanese. Our physical judgments can only carry us so far in determining whether a person actually will speak a language.
Considering the large degree of billingualism in our class, I am curious to know how you guys judge the situation when you are in it. What determines which language you choose to speak? What methods have been the most/least successful? How can we avoid these awkward situations and offending others?
Links:
1. Silverstein, Stuart. "Tongue Twister: English or Español?" La Times. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004020933_etiquette18.html on November 24, 2007.
The "Language" of DNA
Introns, short for "intragenic regions", are regions of DNA, also known as "junk DNA." They gained this nickname because they do not seem to code for anything. Unlike exons, the regions of DNA that are transcribed and translated into proteins, introns are spliced out during protein synthesis. Ironically, although they do not seem to have a specific function, introns make up the majority of DNA. Four types of introns are known to exist: Nuclear introns (which are spliced out by spliceosomes), and group I, II, and III introns (which "self-splice").
Several theories exist about the origin and function of introns. The two main competing theories are the Introns-Early model and the Introns-Late model. The Introns-Early model, suggests that introns are ancient, existing in the earliest prokaryotes. Over evolutionary time, introns were lost in order for organisms to grow more efficiently. Early introns functioned in exon recombination that produced new proteins and eventually new genes. The Introns-Late model suggests that introns emerged from parasitic transposons after eukaryotes and prokaryotes split off. Simon Shepherd, from the University of Bradford proposed that introns may function as a correcting system that helps to fix mistakes that are made during DNA replication.
The debate over intron origin and function is continuous and scientists have not come to a concrete conclusion. However, a recent study has demonstrated an interesting characteristic of introns in DNA. Collaboration between doctors, physicists, and linguists demonstrates that DNA obeys Zipf's Law, a law that is applicable to all human languages.
In Zipf's Law, the popularity of a word (ranked) is inversely proportional to how many times the word is used. If the popularity rank of a word in a book is graphed vs. the number of time the word appears in a book, the graph will yield a straight line. Therefore the most popular word will be used twice as often as the second most popular word which occurs twice as often as the third most popular word. For example, "the", which is the most frequently used word in the English language makes up about 7% of all words used. "Of", the second most popular word, makes up about 3.5% of words used. Linguists claim that Zipf's Law governs all human languages.
Scientists divided DNA into "words" of nucleotide sequences of varying lengths. When ranking the frequency of these "words" against the number of times the words appeared, the graph yielded a straight line. The scientists therefore claimed that the structure of DNA abides by Zipf's Law.
Many further studies of Zipf's Law take away from its magic. G.A. Miller's "monkey typing on a keyboard" experiment argued that a monkey typing randomly at a typewriter with more than one key and a space bar would generate the same pattern of Zipf's Law. Most psychologists and linguists ignore Zipf's Law, seeing it simply as a statistical probability with no inherent significance.
Although most of the articles I used to follow up on this concept were extremely complex mathematically (and I did not really understand them), I thought the concept of language having a mathematical pattern was interesting. At first it made language seem more universal, since all languages are supposed to abide Zipf's Law. But if it is true that a monkey typing randomly on a keyboard, forming words of random letters gets the same results, Zipf's Law doesn't seem very important at all in analyzing the structure of language. Studies seem to suggest that any form of written symbols will follow Zipf's law, so it would make sense that if scientists created a language for DNA, it would do the same. What I found most interesting was that someone actually discovered this pattern. I was reminded of Joe's comment a few weeks ago about how humans (especially in western culture) have a need to categorize and explain everything. Howver, despite its validity or its usefulness, this article was really interesting because of how interdisciplinary the topic was. It combined biology, linguistics and psychology in examining the "language" of DNA.
Links:
1. Kruszelnicki, Karl. "Language in Junk DNA." ABC. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s133634.htm on November 24, 2007.
2. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/18/29003/01306541.pdf
3. http://www.jstor.org/view/00029556/ap050317/05a00180/0
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law
Several theories exist about the origin and function of introns. The two main competing theories are the Introns-Early model and the Introns-Late model. The Introns-Early model, suggests that introns are ancient, existing in the earliest prokaryotes. Over evolutionary time, introns were lost in order for organisms to grow more efficiently. Early introns functioned in exon recombination that produced new proteins and eventually new genes. The Introns-Late model suggests that introns emerged from parasitic transposons after eukaryotes and prokaryotes split off. Simon Shepherd, from the University of Bradford proposed that introns may function as a correcting system that helps to fix mistakes that are made during DNA replication.
The debate over intron origin and function is continuous and scientists have not come to a concrete conclusion. However, a recent study has demonstrated an interesting characteristic of introns in DNA. Collaboration between doctors, physicists, and linguists demonstrates that DNA obeys Zipf's Law, a law that is applicable to all human languages.
In Zipf's Law, the popularity of a word (ranked) is inversely proportional to how many times the word is used. If the popularity rank of a word in a book is graphed vs. the number of time the word appears in a book, the graph will yield a straight line. Therefore the most popular word will be used twice as often as the second most popular word which occurs twice as often as the third most popular word. For example, "the", which is the most frequently used word in the English language makes up about 7% of all words used. "Of", the second most popular word, makes up about 3.5% of words used. Linguists claim that Zipf's Law governs all human languages.
Scientists divided DNA into "words" of nucleotide sequences of varying lengths. When ranking the frequency of these "words" against the number of times the words appeared, the graph yielded a straight line. The scientists therefore claimed that the structure of DNA abides by Zipf's Law.
Many further studies of Zipf's Law take away from its magic. G.A. Miller's "monkey typing on a keyboard" experiment argued that a monkey typing randomly at a typewriter with more than one key and a space bar would generate the same pattern of Zipf's Law. Most psychologists and linguists ignore Zipf's Law, seeing it simply as a statistical probability with no inherent significance.
Although most of the articles I used to follow up on this concept were extremely complex mathematically (and I did not really understand them), I thought the concept of language having a mathematical pattern was interesting. At first it made language seem more universal, since all languages are supposed to abide Zipf's Law. But if it is true that a monkey typing randomly on a keyboard, forming words of random letters gets the same results, Zipf's Law doesn't seem very important at all in analyzing the structure of language. Studies seem to suggest that any form of written symbols will follow Zipf's law, so it would make sense that if scientists created a language for DNA, it would do the same. What I found most interesting was that someone actually discovered this pattern. I was reminded of Joe's comment a few weeks ago about how humans (especially in western culture) have a need to categorize and explain everything. Howver, despite its validity or its usefulness, this article was really interesting because of how interdisciplinary the topic was. It combined biology, linguistics and psychology in examining the "language" of DNA.
Links:
1. Kruszelnicki, Karl. "Language in Junk DNA." ABC. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s133634.htm on November 24, 2007.
2. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/18/29003/01306541.pdf
3. http://www.jstor.org/view/00029556/ap050317/05a00180/0
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law
Friday, November 9, 2007
Language Deficiency as the Basis of Social Problems
Garth George, an opinion writer for the New Zealand Herald, claims that illiteracy and the lack of competent language skills make up the roots of most social problems. George believes that insufficient comprehension of oral and written language is one of the most significant factors that causes violence, abuse, bad parenting, and juvenile delinquency. George claims that poor communication, resulting from the inability to tell others about ourselves and explain to others what we want, as well as the inability to understand the desires of others, leads to anger and frustration.
Effective communication is extremely crucial to our relationships with others, and the lack of language skills can result in unsuccessful communication that harms relationships between people. Those who cannot effectively communicate with others and understand the world that surrounds them tend to feel isolated from the rest of society. If a lack of language skills frequently results in this sense of frustration, those who experience it are more likely to alienate themselves from the rest of the world. They are more prone to joining violent groups such as gangs, giving up on language involving tasks such as school, and committing acts of crime.
According to wikipedia, people who are considered functionally illiterate (cannot use reading, writing, or computational skills efficiently in daily life) are more at risk for facing stressful experiences, social intimidation, health problems, and an inadequate income. Illiteracy has also been linked with poverty and crime in the United States. The link between illiteracy and poverty seems very plausible. In American society, literacy is crucial in almost all careers, especially in careers that are high paying. Those who lack an education or language skills are more likely to struggle in obtaining a career that will generate enough income to pay the bills. In the economy of today, a strong education is almost a necessity to achieve financial success. Therefore, it makes sense that those who are illiterate, functionaly illiterate, or struggle with language are more likely to live in poverty.
The link between literacy and crime however, is more complex. In the past decade, approximately 60% of adults in United States prisons were considered to be either functionally or marginally illiterate. Similarly, about 85% of juvenile criminals had difficulties with writing, math, and reading. (Note the difference between "functionally illiterate" and "illiterate"-the main distinction being that a functionally illiterate person can read and write in their native language, but is not fully efficient in everyday activities; an illiterate person cannot read or write at all).
Are the links between literacy and crime correlated by coincidence? Does illiteracy actually cause a greater likelihood that a person will become involved in dangerous or violent practices? After thinking this question through, I have to say that I disagree. I do not think that the inability to communicate efficiently due to a lack of skills in language directly causes a person to become more prone to lead a criminal life. However, I do believe that the types of people who are illiterate tend to live in environments and face circumstances that promote a greater likelihood of criminal activity. It seems logical that those who are illiterate have trouble finding sufficient jobs and are more likely to be poor. Because of their impoverished social status, they are more likely to resort to illegal activities in order to get money, are more likely to live in neighborhood where crime exists and is influential, and are less likely to succeed in school because they cannot read or write, ultimately leading to dropping out and the possibility of becoming involved in crime as a substitute. Therefore, I believe that there is not so much a direct link between language skills and crime, but rather a direct relationship between language skills and poverty, and a direct relationship between poverty and social problems.
If these social problems are a result of the environment a person lives in (which is often a result of financial status), and financial status is related to how well a person understands the language of a society, would ethnic minorities living in a country be more likely to experience social problems? For example, are immigrants who speak another language and move to predominately English speaking regions of the United States more likely to be involved in crime than English speakers? Will their English language deficiencies increase the chances that they will struggle financially, and will this struggle enhance the probability that they will face social problems such as crime and violence?
As I am writing this, I feel like illiteracy is not so much the issue at hand, but simply the ability to communicate. Reading and writing are clearly important forms of communication, but communication through conversation is especially significant in the relationships that people have with one another. Perhaps the general language barriers that exist, rather than illiteracy, are a bigger influence on financial well-being and the resulting well-being of an individual. For example, would someone living in the United States who could speak and understand English but could not read or write be at the same disadvantage as an immigrant who could not understand English at all? Both are by definition illiterate, but clearly the immigrant will struggle even more due to the language barrier.
I think that we have all experienced the frustration of being unable to communicate with another person. Whether a language barrier or a cultural obstacle exists, or simply if another other person cannot quite comprehend a point that you are making, the inability to connect through language and to experience mutual understanding can be upsetting. Through the financial problems that the lack of knowledge of language can bring, to the simple frustrations of not being able to understand the surrounding world, the inability to fully communicate with the people and the environment around you can bring forth distress, anger, frustration, and resentment. I am interested to hear your thoughts. Clearly many factors influence and lead to social problems throughout the world. But in regards to language, is it plausible to say that illiteracy, or perhaps better stated as the inability to fully communicate with a language, is responsible for many of the world's social problems?
Links:
1. George, Garth (2007). "Lack of Language Skills at Core of Social Problems." New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10474604 on November 9, 2007.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy (November 9, 2007)/
Effective communication is extremely crucial to our relationships with others, and the lack of language skills can result in unsuccessful communication that harms relationships between people. Those who cannot effectively communicate with others and understand the world that surrounds them tend to feel isolated from the rest of society. If a lack of language skills frequently results in this sense of frustration, those who experience it are more likely to alienate themselves from the rest of the world. They are more prone to joining violent groups such as gangs, giving up on language involving tasks such as school, and committing acts of crime.
According to wikipedia, people who are considered functionally illiterate (cannot use reading, writing, or computational skills efficiently in daily life) are more at risk for facing stressful experiences, social intimidation, health problems, and an inadequate income. Illiteracy has also been linked with poverty and crime in the United States. The link between illiteracy and poverty seems very plausible. In American society, literacy is crucial in almost all careers, especially in careers that are high paying. Those who lack an education or language skills are more likely to struggle in obtaining a career that will generate enough income to pay the bills. In the economy of today, a strong education is almost a necessity to achieve financial success. Therefore, it makes sense that those who are illiterate, functionaly illiterate, or struggle with language are more likely to live in poverty.
The link between literacy and crime however, is more complex. In the past decade, approximately 60% of adults in United States prisons were considered to be either functionally or marginally illiterate. Similarly, about 85% of juvenile criminals had difficulties with writing, math, and reading. (Note the difference between "functionally illiterate" and "illiterate"-the main distinction being that a functionally illiterate person can read and write in their native language, but is not fully efficient in everyday activities; an illiterate person cannot read or write at all).
Are the links between literacy and crime correlated by coincidence? Does illiteracy actually cause a greater likelihood that a person will become involved in dangerous or violent practices? After thinking this question through, I have to say that I disagree. I do not think that the inability to communicate efficiently due to a lack of skills in language directly causes a person to become more prone to lead a criminal life. However, I do believe that the types of people who are illiterate tend to live in environments and face circumstances that promote a greater likelihood of criminal activity. It seems logical that those who are illiterate have trouble finding sufficient jobs and are more likely to be poor. Because of their impoverished social status, they are more likely to resort to illegal activities in order to get money, are more likely to live in neighborhood where crime exists and is influential, and are less likely to succeed in school because they cannot read or write, ultimately leading to dropping out and the possibility of becoming involved in crime as a substitute. Therefore, I believe that there is not so much a direct link between language skills and crime, but rather a direct relationship between language skills and poverty, and a direct relationship between poverty and social problems.
If these social problems are a result of the environment a person lives in (which is often a result of financial status), and financial status is related to how well a person understands the language of a society, would ethnic minorities living in a country be more likely to experience social problems? For example, are immigrants who speak another language and move to predominately English speaking regions of the United States more likely to be involved in crime than English speakers? Will their English language deficiencies increase the chances that they will struggle financially, and will this struggle enhance the probability that they will face social problems such as crime and violence?
As I am writing this, I feel like illiteracy is not so much the issue at hand, but simply the ability to communicate. Reading and writing are clearly important forms of communication, but communication through conversation is especially significant in the relationships that people have with one another. Perhaps the general language barriers that exist, rather than illiteracy, are a bigger influence on financial well-being and the resulting well-being of an individual. For example, would someone living in the United States who could speak and understand English but could not read or write be at the same disadvantage as an immigrant who could not understand English at all? Both are by definition illiterate, but clearly the immigrant will struggle even more due to the language barrier.
I think that we have all experienced the frustration of being unable to communicate with another person. Whether a language barrier or a cultural obstacle exists, or simply if another other person cannot quite comprehend a point that you are making, the inability to connect through language and to experience mutual understanding can be upsetting. Through the financial problems that the lack of knowledge of language can bring, to the simple frustrations of not being able to understand the surrounding world, the inability to fully communicate with the people and the environment around you can bring forth distress, anger, frustration, and resentment. I am interested to hear your thoughts. Clearly many factors influence and lead to social problems throughout the world. But in regards to language, is it plausible to say that illiteracy, or perhaps better stated as the inability to fully communicate with a language, is responsible for many of the world's social problems?
Links:
1. George, Garth (2007). "Lack of Language Skills at Core of Social Problems." New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10474604 on November 9, 2007.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy (November 9, 2007)/
Monday, November 5, 2007
Secret Code or Just Joking Around? What Can Body Language Really Tell Us?
Terror suspect Youssef Megahed was arrested a few months ago for carrying explosives in the form of homemade pipe bombs and .22 caliber bullets while being a passenger in a speeding car. Youssef and the driver of the car, both students at the University of South Florida, were charged with the illegal transportation of explosives. Authorities believe that the two students were planning to bomb the Goose Creek Naval Weapons Station in South Carolina.
Recently Yahia Megahed, Youssef's brother was suspected of communicating with Yahia using "sinister" sign language while visiting his brother in jail. Jail cameras used for prisoners to see visitors captured Yahia making strange movements with his hands and making funny facial expressions. He first looked left and right as if to see if anyone was watching him, then raised his eyebrows, scratched his head, and made other strange gestures. He then began moving his hands in a way that resembled sign language. When someone walked behind him, Yahia quickly moved from using what authorities thought was sign language to scratching his head.
An interpreter for Fox News claimed that Yahia clearly formed the letters "m", "i", "g", "l", and "c". Yahia claimed that he was just fooling around with the camera. Authorities claim that the message was indeed "sinister" although they have not revealed exactly what was said.
Ironically, the car in which the explosives were carried actually belonged to Yahia although he was not present in the car when Youssef was arrested. The video made authorities suspicious and they are currently trying to hold Youssef in jail, claiming that the video tape, along with comments Youssef made about America, the fact that his partner was teaching bomb-making, and the fact that he was planning to buy rifles before getting arrested, indicate that Megahed is a danger to society.
This story highlights the significance of body language in communication. Yahia did not speak at all, and only communicated through facial expressions and gestures with his hands and body. Despite the fact that he did not speak, authorities believe that they can interpret his motives. Whether Yahia intended to pass a message to his brother or whether he was simply making faces into the camera, his behavior has been interpreted as intentional body language.
This article got me thinking about body language in general. Several studies have been conducted regarding the significance of unintentional, almost subconscious body language. For example, certain body language has been associated with lying. Liars tend to avoid making eye contact, using "shifty" eyes, and tend to fidget by touching the face. Their expressions are very stiff and lacking movement. Smiles, frowns, and other emotions expressed with the face are often only expressed using the mouth rather than the entire face, and timing of these emotions may be inappropriate. Liars may also keep a distance from the person they are speaking with and become defensive when accused.
Professionals such as police use body language analyzation when interviewing suspects. Many employers also adopt this process in dealing with employees.
This makes me question: Can body language be translated in the same way that other languages are translated? It appears that the interpretation of body language is much like interpretation in any topic, such as literature or art. The interpretation comes from the viewer; there is not a single way in which to analyze it. This seems to make body language different from other languages. It cannot be defined in a clear cut manner. For example, one cannot assume that because a person is avoiding eye contact that they are certainly lying. It is not as simple as translating a word (although we have established in our discussions that this process is not always so simple either). It depends on how different individuals perceive the expressions and movements that they view, which can result in several distinct interpretations. The translation of body language seems to assume a great amount of information, rather than having set definitions of body movements, with each conveying a certain idea.
If we do accept the general assumptions behind body language as being correct most of the time, can we control this language as we do our spoken languages? Can we (if desired) "fake" body language in order to convey a certain emotion just as we intend to lie? Can we be aware enough of our body language and understand it well enough to manage it as we do when we speak?
If it is true that we cannot clearly translate body language and that it is subject to the viewer, how much can body language really tell us about a person's thoughts and feelings? Is body language a fair way to judge a person, especially in the context of law? Obviously Yahia's case was different, as his body language was clearly intentional, but what about cases in which a person is not attempting to convey any type of emotion? Although a person cannot be convicted based on body language (as they can based on a spoken confession), iIt does not seem practical that a person should be judged through body language. Isn't this the same as judging someone based on their appearance, an act considered discriminatory? Just because a person appears to be lying through body language does not ensure that the person is actually lying. How accurate is judging body language? How often do the body language signals that we give off really mean what experts claim they do?
Links:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/terror-suspects.html
(actual movie) http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=4557891&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/01649/bodylanguage.htm
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php
Recently Yahia Megahed, Youssef's brother was suspected of communicating with Yahia using "sinister" sign language while visiting his brother in jail. Jail cameras used for prisoners to see visitors captured Yahia making strange movements with his hands and making funny facial expressions. He first looked left and right as if to see if anyone was watching him, then raised his eyebrows, scratched his head, and made other strange gestures. He then began moving his hands in a way that resembled sign language. When someone walked behind him, Yahia quickly moved from using what authorities thought was sign language to scratching his head.
An interpreter for Fox News claimed that Yahia clearly formed the letters "m", "i", "g", "l", and "c". Yahia claimed that he was just fooling around with the camera. Authorities claim that the message was indeed "sinister" although they have not revealed exactly what was said.
Ironically, the car in which the explosives were carried actually belonged to Yahia although he was not present in the car when Youssef was arrested. The video made authorities suspicious and they are currently trying to hold Youssef in jail, claiming that the video tape, along with comments Youssef made about America, the fact that his partner was teaching bomb-making, and the fact that he was planning to buy rifles before getting arrested, indicate that Megahed is a danger to society.
This story highlights the significance of body language in communication. Yahia did not speak at all, and only communicated through facial expressions and gestures with his hands and body. Despite the fact that he did not speak, authorities believe that they can interpret his motives. Whether Yahia intended to pass a message to his brother or whether he was simply making faces into the camera, his behavior has been interpreted as intentional body language.
This article got me thinking about body language in general. Several studies have been conducted regarding the significance of unintentional, almost subconscious body language. For example, certain body language has been associated with lying. Liars tend to avoid making eye contact, using "shifty" eyes, and tend to fidget by touching the face. Their expressions are very stiff and lacking movement. Smiles, frowns, and other emotions expressed with the face are often only expressed using the mouth rather than the entire face, and timing of these emotions may be inappropriate. Liars may also keep a distance from the person they are speaking with and become defensive when accused.
Professionals such as police use body language analyzation when interviewing suspects. Many employers also adopt this process in dealing with employees.
This makes me question: Can body language be translated in the same way that other languages are translated? It appears that the interpretation of body language is much like interpretation in any topic, such as literature or art. The interpretation comes from the viewer; there is not a single way in which to analyze it. This seems to make body language different from other languages. It cannot be defined in a clear cut manner. For example, one cannot assume that because a person is avoiding eye contact that they are certainly lying. It is not as simple as translating a word (although we have established in our discussions that this process is not always so simple either). It depends on how different individuals perceive the expressions and movements that they view, which can result in several distinct interpretations. The translation of body language seems to assume a great amount of information, rather than having set definitions of body movements, with each conveying a certain idea.
If we do accept the general assumptions behind body language as being correct most of the time, can we control this language as we do our spoken languages? Can we (if desired) "fake" body language in order to convey a certain emotion just as we intend to lie? Can we be aware enough of our body language and understand it well enough to manage it as we do when we speak?
If it is true that we cannot clearly translate body language and that it is subject to the viewer, how much can body language really tell us about a person's thoughts and feelings? Is body language a fair way to judge a person, especially in the context of law? Obviously Yahia's case was different, as his body language was clearly intentional, but what about cases in which a person is not attempting to convey any type of emotion? Although a person cannot be convicted based on body language (as they can based on a spoken confession), iIt does not seem practical that a person should be judged through body language. Isn't this the same as judging someone based on their appearance, an act considered discriminatory? Just because a person appears to be lying through body language does not ensure that the person is actually lying. How accurate is judging body language? How often do the body language signals that we give off really mean what experts claim they do?
Links:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/terror-suspects.html
(actual movie) http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=4557891&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/01649/bodylanguage.htm
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php
Mathematics: A Language of its Own
Studies conducted at Egerton University indicate that incompetent teaching strategies, particularly the "lack of mastery of mathematical language" are the main reason that students in Kenya are struggling in math classes. (Kenyan students ranked in the 18-19 percentile on standardized math tests between 2001 and 2006). The "mathematical language" described in the article is one in which students must understand the context of the problem, symbols involved, and the meaning of words simply to move on to a second step of solving the problem with logic.
Dr. Bernard Githua and Dr. Z. K. Mbugua claim that Kenyan students are often confused by mathematical language because many math terms are the same as terms used in everyday life, yet represent different ideas and concepts. Students are used to hearing words like "base", "parallel", and "similar" frequently, but in math these terms have different meanings. By learning the normal usage of these words first, students have trouble creating new meanings for them when they are working in the mathematical sphere. Although these words already exist in the students' vocabulary, they must add definitions to these words to incorporate their new meanings.
On the other hand, there are words in math that are never heard or utilized in everyday life. The study claims that words such as "denominator", "isosceles", and "coefficient" that are rarely heard outside of class make math extremely difficult to learn. Students must add an entire new vocabulary into their language for these mathematical terms.
In addition to these new words, new symbols also must be learned in order to perform mathematical computations. New symbols are like a completely different language that students must comprehend. Githua and Mbugua also claim that symbols are contradictory because although they are supposed to be precise, they can mean several things. Symbols can be used for "communication, recording, formation of new concepts, multiple classification, explanation, aiding reflective mental activity, exhibition of mathematical structure, automation of routine mathematical manipulations, recovery of information and creative mental activity." The multiple usages of symbols, and the fact that students are expected to understand the many usages in depth make them difficult to comprehend.
Lastly, the article argues that mathematical terms with negative connotations such as "improper fraction", "irrational number", and "negative" may not be appealing to students. (I personally have to disagree with the last point made as it seems a bit irrelevant. Although I think connotations can influence your feelings toward a word or concept I do not think they are responsible for the issues students have with math).
Students learning math in a second language are especially prone to struggling. Because they are less likely to understand the words of the second language as well as in their first language, and as a result of language interference, even if they understand the mathematical concepts well, they may not be able to solve a problem because of the language use in the problem. This reminds me of our discussions about whether students whose native language is not English should be mainstreamed into all English classes, or slowly integrate over time. It does not seem fair that someone who may be extremely talented at math struggles in the subject because of his or her inability to understand the language in which the problem is written.
Problems with math can potentially harm students by hindering future success. Approximately 90% of careers require a basic understanding of mathematics. The study suggests that for the students in Kenya to perform better in math, teachers must be trained to explain mathematical language to students and use "repeated definitions, marginal comments, reminders, clues, glossaries and indexes in textbooks."
I found this article very interesting because although we have considered the difficulties in learning a second language that is different from our native language, we have not really discussed the potential "languages", such as math, that exist within a language. I also find it interesting that the problems students are having with math do not exist in one culture or one language but across all cultures and languages. The article focused on Kenya, but emphasized that the problems with math are worldwide, and that all nations need to have better explanation of the "mathematical language" in order for students to perform at a higher level.
It seems that the language of mathematics is one that is fairly foreign and difficult to learn for speakers of all languages. I am reminded of the movie Mean Girls (I know...but hear me out) where Lindsay Lohan, a new student to the United States who has lived in Africa for most of her life, claims that her favorite subject in school is math because it is "the same in every language." Even the article I read stated that math has "an internationally recognized vocabulary." Ironically, it seems that although somewhat universal, math itself constitutes a separate language, or at least a very specialized subset of language that can be difficult to learn. Math begins as foreign in some way to everyone, because it contains vocabulary and symbols that are not common in everyday speech and must be learned.
I am interested to hear what you think. Can math be considered a language of its own? Do speakers of a certain language have an advantage because the "language of math" is more easily incorporated into their language? Are there other skills that we learn (such as music, for example) that can be considered "languages" in a sense? Does language describe any type of logical communication or can the word language only define languages that we use for direct communication (spoken language, sign language, etc.)?
LINKS:
1. Yusuf, Khadija (2007). "The Standard." Retrieved from http://www.eastandard.net/mag/mag.php?mnu=details&id=1143976743&catid=316 on November 5, 2007.
Dr. Bernard Githua and Dr. Z. K. Mbugua claim that Kenyan students are often confused by mathematical language because many math terms are the same as terms used in everyday life, yet represent different ideas and concepts. Students are used to hearing words like "base", "parallel", and "similar" frequently, but in math these terms have different meanings. By learning the normal usage of these words first, students have trouble creating new meanings for them when they are working in the mathematical sphere. Although these words already exist in the students' vocabulary, they must add definitions to these words to incorporate their new meanings.
On the other hand, there are words in math that are never heard or utilized in everyday life. The study claims that words such as "denominator", "isosceles", and "coefficient" that are rarely heard outside of class make math extremely difficult to learn. Students must add an entire new vocabulary into their language for these mathematical terms.
In addition to these new words, new symbols also must be learned in order to perform mathematical computations. New symbols are like a completely different language that students must comprehend. Githua and Mbugua also claim that symbols are contradictory because although they are supposed to be precise, they can mean several things. Symbols can be used for "communication, recording, formation of new concepts, multiple classification, explanation, aiding reflective mental activity, exhibition of mathematical structure, automation of routine mathematical manipulations, recovery of information and creative mental activity." The multiple usages of symbols, and the fact that students are expected to understand the many usages in depth make them difficult to comprehend.
Lastly, the article argues that mathematical terms with negative connotations such as "improper fraction", "irrational number", and "negative" may not be appealing to students. (I personally have to disagree with the last point made as it seems a bit irrelevant. Although I think connotations can influence your feelings toward a word or concept I do not think they are responsible for the issues students have with math).
Students learning math in a second language are especially prone to struggling. Because they are less likely to understand the words of the second language as well as in their first language, and as a result of language interference, even if they understand the mathematical concepts well, they may not be able to solve a problem because of the language use in the problem. This reminds me of our discussions about whether students whose native language is not English should be mainstreamed into all English classes, or slowly integrate over time. It does not seem fair that someone who may be extremely talented at math struggles in the subject because of his or her inability to understand the language in which the problem is written.
Problems with math can potentially harm students by hindering future success. Approximately 90% of careers require a basic understanding of mathematics. The study suggests that for the students in Kenya to perform better in math, teachers must be trained to explain mathematical language to students and use "repeated definitions, marginal comments, reminders, clues, glossaries and indexes in textbooks."
I found this article very interesting because although we have considered the difficulties in learning a second language that is different from our native language, we have not really discussed the potential "languages", such as math, that exist within a language. I also find it interesting that the problems students are having with math do not exist in one culture or one language but across all cultures and languages. The article focused on Kenya, but emphasized that the problems with math are worldwide, and that all nations need to have better explanation of the "mathematical language" in order for students to perform at a higher level.
It seems that the language of mathematics is one that is fairly foreign and difficult to learn for speakers of all languages. I am reminded of the movie Mean Girls (I know...but hear me out) where Lindsay Lohan, a new student to the United States who has lived in Africa for most of her life, claims that her favorite subject in school is math because it is "the same in every language." Even the article I read stated that math has "an internationally recognized vocabulary." Ironically, it seems that although somewhat universal, math itself constitutes a separate language, or at least a very specialized subset of language that can be difficult to learn. Math begins as foreign in some way to everyone, because it contains vocabulary and symbols that are not common in everyday speech and must be learned.
I am interested to hear what you think. Can math be considered a language of its own? Do speakers of a certain language have an advantage because the "language of math" is more easily incorporated into their language? Are there other skills that we learn (such as music, for example) that can be considered "languages" in a sense? Does language describe any type of logical communication or can the word language only define languages that we use for direct communication (spoken language, sign language, etc.)?
LINKS:
1. Yusuf, Khadija (2007). "The Standard." Retrieved from http://www.eastandard.net/mag/mag.php?mnu=details&id=1143976743&catid=316 on November 5, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
