Summary of Study
For the past few weeks, I’ve been fortunate enough to work with Caitlin Fausey, a PhD candidate at the Stanford Psychology Department, and her study that compares the frequency of agentive versus non-agentive speech within English and Korean. To collect data for the study, a large sample of native Korean and English speakers were asked to watch a video-recording of accidental and purposeful events (i.e. a man popping a balloon on purpose and by accident, a man stepping on a can on purpose and by accident, etc.) and to describe what they saw.
The data collected from this process was then coded, with a “1” assigned to sentences that contained an agentive verb (i.e. he popped the balloon), a “2” assigned to sentences that contained a non-agentive verb (i.e. the balloon popped), or a “5” assigned to sentences that were un-codeable (i.e. completely irrelevant descriptions, sentences that did not contain a key verb, etc.). An initial joint meeting was facilitated between the two coders, and any disagreements in coding were resolved. Any outstanding disagreements were then resolved over email. A second joint meeting was conducted in order to begin analyzing and graphing the data collected during the experiment. The data was transferred from Excel to SLSS, where the data was consolidated and graphed. This data analysis examined how often Korean speakers used agentive language to describe accidental and non-accidental events and also identified the mean, potential outliers, and the significance factor of the experiment. A third and final meeting was conducted in order to compare these results with that of English speakers and identify any significant relationship between the two sets of data.
The data suggested that Korean speakers tended to use non-agentive speech more frequently to describe accidental events than their English speaking counterparts. Korean and English speakers used agentive speech to describe non-accidental speech with similar frequency.
The Difficulties of Coding
Although I considered myself fairly fluent in Korean prior to the start of this experiment, I realized that the Korean language was far more complicated than I had known. In the Korean sentences I coded, the test subjects rarely included the agent when describing the events they saw. Instead, they made the agentive/non-agentive part of their sentence by adding either a subject-marker or object-marker after the object being acted upon. This pattern was particularly evident in the “balloon-popping” scene:
풍선을 터트렸다.
(He) popped the balloon.
Demonstrates the use of the object-marker “eul.” In this sentence, the balloon is the object of an unknown (or rather implied) agent.
풍선이 터트렸다.
The balloon popped.
Demonstrates use of the subject-marker “ee.” In this sentence, the balloon is the subject.
Unfortunately, not all the data sets were this clear. Some sentences included a lot of extraneous information on the agent’s shirt color, what he was doing before he popped the balloon poten,tial reasons behind this seemingly senseless action, etc. Needless to say, it became progressively more difficult to find this single marker embedded within a sentence to determine whether the sentence represented agentive or non-agentive language.
Experiences Consolidating Data
Although I’d taken an introductory college-level psychology course prior to this study, I’d never used SPSS or Excel to analyze data first-hand. Therefore, I didn’t fully understand the concepts and processes we discussed during our meetings at first. But I gradually became familiar with the process of turning raw data into graphs to observe any general trends or patterns. One significant observation we made was that Korean speakers used non-agentive speech much more frequently than English speakers to describe accidental events, which supported Caitlin’s initial hypothesis.
One new thing I learned during this process was the importance of the “significance” factor, which estimates how likely the patterns represented in the data are just occurring by chance. In order to make a publishable claim, the significance factor should be less than .05, which suggests that there is a definite causal relationship within the data (in this case, how English and Korean speakers describe accidental events with either agentive/non-agentive speech). At first, the p-value was around .075, which was a little too high to make a definitive claim about the data. However, after two outliers out of a pool of 90 test subjects were eliminated (one English speaker who described accidental events with non-agentive language and one Korean speaker who described accidental events with agentive language with unusually high frequency), the p-value fell to .015, well below the magic number for publishing your results.
Future Prospects for this Study
One interesting trend I noticed while coding was that certain individuals tended to use either agentive speech or non-agentive speech more frequently when describing accidental events. In other words, the frequency of agentive speech may also depend on the test subject as well as the particular event being described. There seemed to be a loose correlation between the use of agentive speech and the particular form of speech used to describe the event. Korean is a language with multiple levels of formality (honorific, deferential, humble, polite, blunt, half-talk) that depend on the speaker’s relationship with the individuals being spoken to. Perhaps another step for this study would be to code each sentence into one of the 5 categories of speech mentioned below and to see whether or not there is any statistically significant pattern across the different levels of speech formality. However, as many of the sentences within the data set are incomplete, it would be difficult to accurately and consistently code each sentence into one of five categories. But if it could be done, one might be able to draw further conclusions on which level of speech lends itself to agentive or non-agentive speech.
Final Thoughts on the Study
Overall, I thought this study was a great opportunity for me to explore an entirely new aspect of language, one that focuses a quantitative versus qualitative scope of study. Coding the data allowed me to explore the intricacies of the Korean language, and I was definitely able to put all the grammatical concepts I’ve learned in my Korean language classes to use. The data analysis process provided a thorough refresher course in statistics, and I was able to see how statistics can be applied differently in various disciplines, particularly psychology. When I first applied for this introductory seminar, I mentioned that I wasn’t very interested in learning more about the technical aspects of language. However, after seeing how such details of language can be extrapolated and applied in a greater context, I’m happy to say that I am very much interested in learning more about the structure and syntax of various languages. I thoroughly enjoyed my experience working with Caitlin on her project, and I hope to become more active in research studies in the future.
Friday, June 4, 2010
playing video games to learn a new language
I'm traveling to Ecuador this summer, and I was a little apprehensive because my Spanish is a little rusty. Maybe rusty is the wrong term, because that implies that my Spanish was at some point in good, working order (which may not be entirely true). But anyways, I was looking for programs to help me brush up on my Spanish before leaving, and I ran across this:
http://www.amazon.com/My-Spanish-Coach-Nintendo-DS/dp/B000SQ5LOQ
My Spanish Coach, developed by UBI soft, is a videogame for the Nintendo DS system and promises to teach Spanish in just 15-20 minutes a day! Finally, a videogame my parents might actually want me to buy! UBI soft has developed games for several other languages including Japanese, French, and even Mandarin Chinese. Fascinated, I clicked through all the reviews of the product to learn more. It just seemed to be too good to be true.
And it was, sort of. Yes, the game is a an excellent tool for beginners, but it's hardly the tool to master the language as it promises to be. Very few verb tenses are covered, and the game skips over a couple critical language lessons including "por" vs "para," the different genders within the language, and much more. The game is useful for learning more vocabulary, which it presents in a random fashion after you reach a certain level of expertise. Also useful is the ability to record your voice to be able to listen to how you pronounce various words (something that I need very very much). Finally, the game also includes a Spanish-English dictionary, but I don't think I'll be able to walk around the streets of Quito consulting my DS to communicate to the locals.
In any case, it still seems to be an interesting buy. Who knows, I might go ahead and purchase it in a few weeks. I'm that desperate for Spanish help, and I'm a sucker for good marketing.
http://www.amazon.com/My-Spanish-Coach-Nintendo-DS/dp/B000SQ5LOQ
My Spanish Coach, developed by UBI soft, is a videogame for the Nintendo DS system and promises to teach Spanish in just 15-20 minutes a day! Finally, a videogame my parents might actually want me to buy! UBI soft has developed games for several other languages including Japanese, French, and even Mandarin Chinese. Fascinated, I clicked through all the reviews of the product to learn more. It just seemed to be too good to be true.
And it was, sort of. Yes, the game is a an excellent tool for beginners, but it's hardly the tool to master the language as it promises to be. Very few verb tenses are covered, and the game skips over a couple critical language lessons including "por" vs "para," the different genders within the language, and much more. The game is useful for learning more vocabulary, which it presents in a random fashion after you reach a certain level of expertise. Also useful is the ability to record your voice to be able to listen to how you pronounce various words (something that I need very very much). Finally, the game also includes a Spanish-English dictionary, but I don't think I'll be able to walk around the streets of Quito consulting my DS to communicate to the locals.
In any case, it still seems to be an interesting buy. Who knows, I might go ahead and purchase it in a few weeks. I'm that desperate for Spanish help, and I'm a sucker for good marketing.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
become familiar with accents ... or die?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/learning-understand-unfamiliar-accents-save-life/19495301/
This fascinating article, entitled "Why Learning to Understand Unfamiliar Accents May Save Your Life," examines the issue of non-American accents and the role they plan in communicating with others. In an extreme example, the article opens up by considering a situation where a miscommunication because of an accent may have been seriously life-threatening. In this situation, a pilot landing a jet in Korea radioed in to the control tower to ask for permission to land. The Korean operator signaled that the plane was clear to land on airstrip "Zulu" - code for airstrip Z - but pronounced the Z like a J, as is common with Korean English-speakers. The pilot thought the controller was mispronouncing "Juliette," and began to land in airstrip "J" narrowly missing another airplane that was landing on the same strip.
The issue of understanding accents also plays a more realistic role in business as well. According to a recent study, multinational corporations better equip their employees in "accent reduction" training that American companies do. As a result, foreign businesses are more likely to conduct business with these employees rather than untrained workers.
These two situations bring up the issue of a "standard" accent for a particular language. Is it important to speak a language in a common accent? Do the above two examples justify the recent Arizona law that prohibits English teachers from speaking with an accent? Is there even such a thing as a universally-spoken accent within a language?
The one thing that this article does make clear is the importance of adjusting the way you speak a certain language to convey maximum clarity. Who knows, it might save your life one day.
This fascinating article, entitled "Why Learning to Understand Unfamiliar Accents May Save Your Life," examines the issue of non-American accents and the role they plan in communicating with others. In an extreme example, the article opens up by considering a situation where a miscommunication because of an accent may have been seriously life-threatening. In this situation, a pilot landing a jet in Korea radioed in to the control tower to ask for permission to land. The Korean operator signaled that the plane was clear to land on airstrip "Zulu" - code for airstrip Z - but pronounced the Z like a J, as is common with Korean English-speakers. The pilot thought the controller was mispronouncing "Juliette," and began to land in airstrip "J" narrowly missing another airplane that was landing on the same strip.
The issue of understanding accents also plays a more realistic role in business as well. According to a recent study, multinational corporations better equip their employees in "accent reduction" training that American companies do. As a result, foreign businesses are more likely to conduct business with these employees rather than untrained workers.
These two situations bring up the issue of a "standard" accent for a particular language. Is it important to speak a language in a common accent? Do the above two examples justify the recent Arizona law that prohibits English teachers from speaking with an accent? Is there even such a thing as a universally-spoken accent within a language?
The one thing that this article does make clear is the importance of adjusting the way you speak a certain language to convey maximum clarity. Who knows, it might save your life one day.
the flaws of language submersion?
In this article, Antonio Groceffo - a self-proclaimed language "expert" - disparages language submersion as "the worst possible way to learn a language." His tone is highly arrogant and condescending at times, but I will attempt to look past his enormous ego to examine his key argument about the best way to go about learning a new language.
Language "submersion" is essentially the act of placing an individual in an environment in which a certain language is spoken without giving him/her any teaching in that language. Essentially, it is like teaching someone how to read by throwing Don Quixote at him and expecting him to learn. Certainly, one can see that there are inherent flaws in this system, which may validate the claims Groceffo makes in his editorial. However, while this task is monumental, it is certainly not impossible. When the Dutch first made contact with Japan in the early 17th century, Japanese scholars learned to speak Dutch simply by listening to and attempting to communicate with the foreigners - no textbooks, flash cards, or language classes involved. Nevertheless, one can expect that such a method of learning a language - without any prior experience - can certainly be a difficult task.
Yet at the same time, the language learning methods that Groceffo seems to support, that is traditional classroom learning, isn't exactly the best way to go about learning a language either. Groceffo concedes this fact himself, whether intentionally or unintentionally, when he mentions that some individuals graduate with an advanced degree in a foreign language without achieving native-level fluency. I believe Groceffo discounts the value of language immersion and the importance of speaking with native-language speakers.
If simply talking to people who speak a certain language is such a bad idea, how did we learn our first languages to begin with? When I was a baby, my parents certainly didn't enroll me in English-language classes before I could start to talk. Instead, I learned English through the exact same methods that Groceffo completely disregards: language submersion. Certain software programs, namely the Rosetta Stone, have recognized this as an excellent method of learning a language and have applied this process to their products. Perhaps language submersion isn't that bad of an idea afterall.
Language "submersion" is essentially the act of placing an individual in an environment in which a certain language is spoken without giving him/her any teaching in that language. Essentially, it is like teaching someone how to read by throwing Don Quixote at him and expecting him to learn. Certainly, one can see that there are inherent flaws in this system, which may validate the claims Groceffo makes in his editorial. However, while this task is monumental, it is certainly not impossible. When the Dutch first made contact with Japan in the early 17th century, Japanese scholars learned to speak Dutch simply by listening to and attempting to communicate with the foreigners - no textbooks, flash cards, or language classes involved. Nevertheless, one can expect that such a method of learning a language - without any prior experience - can certainly be a difficult task.
Yet at the same time, the language learning methods that Groceffo seems to support, that is traditional classroom learning, isn't exactly the best way to go about learning a language either. Groceffo concedes this fact himself, whether intentionally or unintentionally, when he mentions that some individuals graduate with an advanced degree in a foreign language without achieving native-level fluency. I believe Groceffo discounts the value of language immersion and the importance of speaking with native-language speakers.
If simply talking to people who speak a certain language is such a bad idea, how did we learn our first languages to begin with? When I was a baby, my parents certainly didn't enroll me in English-language classes before I could start to talk. Instead, I learned English through the exact same methods that Groceffo completely disregards: language submersion. Certain software programs, namely the Rosetta Stone, have recognized this as an excellent method of learning a language and have applied this process to their products. Perhaps language submersion isn't that bad of an idea afterall.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
translating the Word of God
This article deals with the issue of translation of the Bible, a potentially sensitive text to translate into various, obscure languages. According to this article, Jon Riding and his extensive team of scientists, linguists, and theologians at Bible society are developing a revolutionary technology called Paratext which will make the process of Biblical translation much more efficient.
Currently, translating the Bible into a new language is a laborious task that can take anywhere between 10 to 20 years. In order to uphold the authenticity of the original texts, the Bible can only be translated from Greek or Hebrew, and must be re-translated into the original language to cross-check for any potential discrepancies. As this task is incredibly time-consuming, the Bible is virtually unknown to speakers of thousands of languages around the world.
Apparently, this new software will change all that. Paratext won't necessarily translate giant chunks of text into a desired language, like Google Translate does, but will rather serve as an important tool for human translators to conduct their work much more effectively and efficiently.
In class, we've discussed the huge implications of possible mistranslations (ex the formation of divine conception through language), and this new technology may greatly increase the possibility of minute mistranslations with great disparities in meaning. Although this article doesn't describe the machinations of this new software in depth, one can expect opposition to such a controversial use of technology. But the implications of Paratext are even more significant. Perhaps this is the key to allowing everyone on Earth access to the Bible, a new religion, and an entirely new take on life.
Currently, translating the Bible into a new language is a laborious task that can take anywhere between 10 to 20 years. In order to uphold the authenticity of the original texts, the Bible can only be translated from Greek or Hebrew, and must be re-translated into the original language to cross-check for any potential discrepancies. As this task is incredibly time-consuming, the Bible is virtually unknown to speakers of thousands of languages around the world.
Apparently, this new software will change all that. Paratext won't necessarily translate giant chunks of text into a desired language, like Google Translate does, but will rather serve as an important tool for human translators to conduct their work much more effectively and efficiently.
In class, we've discussed the huge implications of possible mistranslations (ex the formation of divine conception through language), and this new technology may greatly increase the possibility of minute mistranslations with great disparities in meaning. Although this article doesn't describe the machinations of this new software in depth, one can expect opposition to such a controversial use of technology. But the implications of Paratext are even more significant. Perhaps this is the key to allowing everyone on Earth access to the Bible, a new religion, and an entirely new take on life.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
"Korean, the language of love"
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/south-korea/100506/learn-korean-language-dating-expat-life
This fun, but fascinating article discusses one possible motivation for learning the Korean language. According to the article, many foreigners, particularly men, learn Korean so they can better communicate with native Koreans and increase their chances of a romantic relationship. The influx in English-language academies "or hagwons" has guaranteed a steady supply of foreign men looking for love in Korea.
While this phenomena may seem quite random to someone not familiar with the subject, my experiences in a Stanford Korean class supports this hypothesis. Out of the 12 people in my class, 4 are non-native speakers, 2 of which are men. Both of these men are learning Korean to better communicate with their Korean girlfriends.
But this situation brings up many interesting issues regarding bilingual romantic relationships. How many of these individuals apply their language skills for a long-term relationship rather than a one-night stand? Is a meaningful relationship with a significant language barrier even possible? This article suggests that most men looking for a relationship are only interested in "hooking up" rather than settling down with their Korean counterparts. If this is true across the spectrum, this is certainly an interesting use of one's language skills.
Also, for your viewing pleasure:
This fun, but fascinating article discusses one possible motivation for learning the Korean language. According to the article, many foreigners, particularly men, learn Korean so they can better communicate with native Koreans and increase their chances of a romantic relationship. The influx in English-language academies "or hagwons" has guaranteed a steady supply of foreign men looking for love in Korea.
While this phenomena may seem quite random to someone not familiar with the subject, my experiences in a Stanford Korean class supports this hypothesis. Out of the 12 people in my class, 4 are non-native speakers, 2 of which are men. Both of these men are learning Korean to better communicate with their Korean girlfriends.
But this situation brings up many interesting issues regarding bilingual romantic relationships. How many of these individuals apply their language skills for a long-term relationship rather than a one-night stand? Is a meaningful relationship with a significant language barrier even possible? This article suggests that most men looking for a relationship are only interested in "hooking up" rather than settling down with their Korean counterparts. If this is true across the spectrum, this is certainly an interesting use of one's language skills.
Also, for your viewing pleasure:
Monday, May 10, 2010
Deafness in one ear lowers language skills?
A recent WebMD article entitled "1-sided hearing loss lowers language skills" caught my attention because - well - it seemed like such a random topic at first. According to this article, new research shows that loss of hearing in one year at an early age may have an effect on a child's ability to grasp certain language skills and concepts. Judith C. E. Lieu, M.D. of Washington University claims that "on average, children with hearing loss in one ear have poorer oral language scores than children with hearing in both ears."
The reasons behind possible correlation between this variable, hearing loss in one ear, and outcome, poorer language skills, are unclear. Lieu suggests that children with hearing loss in one ear may ignore group work activity because the noise and sound overwhelm them. To (very unscientifically) test this hypothesis, I plugged my left ear to see if the sound I heard in a group setting was any different when I didn't have a finger stuck in one of my ears.
The differences, I observed, were minimal. However, that brief test certainly does not discount Lieu's evidence in any way. Instead, I propose an expansion of Lieu's experiment. Lieu should provide each child with unilateral hearing loss with a hearing aid that amplifies sound so that they too can hear with two ears. The students' language performance should then be re-recorded in juxtaposition with children with full hearing capacity. Or an entirely separate experiment could be performed, with one group of children with hearing in both ears, one group with children with unilateral hearing loss and no hearing aid, and another group with children with unilateral hearing loss and a hearing aid. Of course this brings up certain ethical issues of withholding a potentially life-changing device to an entire experimental group of children though ...
In any case, the original article can be found here: http://children.webmd.com/news/20100510/1-sided-hearing-loss-lowers-language-skills
The reasons behind possible correlation between this variable, hearing loss in one ear, and outcome, poorer language skills, are unclear. Lieu suggests that children with hearing loss in one ear may ignore group work activity because the noise and sound overwhelm them. To (very unscientifically) test this hypothesis, I plugged my left ear to see if the sound I heard in a group setting was any different when I didn't have a finger stuck in one of my ears.
The differences, I observed, were minimal. However, that brief test certainly does not discount Lieu's evidence in any way. Instead, I propose an expansion of Lieu's experiment. Lieu should provide each child with unilateral hearing loss with a hearing aid that amplifies sound so that they too can hear with two ears. The students' language performance should then be re-recorded in juxtaposition with children with full hearing capacity. Or an entirely separate experiment could be performed, with one group of children with hearing in both ears, one group with children with unilateral hearing loss and no hearing aid, and another group with children with unilateral hearing loss and a hearing aid. Of course this brings up certain ethical issues of withholding a potentially life-changing device to an entire experimental group of children though ...
In any case, the original article can be found here: http://children.webmd.com/news/20100510/1-sided-hearing-loss-lowers-language-skills
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Response to "legal language"
Original article: http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Legal+language/2948757/story.html
This opinion blog article discusses Canada's Bill-C232, which would make bilingual fluency in both English and French mandatory for Canadian Supreme Court judges. Proponents of this bill argue that, although the court's rulings can be translated into different languages, the judges themselves should also be bilingual so that they can read the translation and determine if it upholds the ruling's original intention. In this blog, the Calgary Herald argues that this places an unnecessary, unfair restriction on the pool of Supreme Court nominees, and claims that this bill is politically motivated.
I think that it's just interesting to be able to have this debate in the first place. Canada has two official languages (English and French), and I'm assuming this means that official government business must reflect this language duality. In class, we talked about how even the best translated texts could lose some of their original meaning in the process of translation. But this situation greatly magnifies the issue, because a slight change in meaning could supposedly result in the miscarriage of law.
Though I find proponents of this bill bring up an interesting point, I agree with the author of this article in that I do not think that the justices need to be bilingual in order to function within the government. I know that in the United States, the law is often interpreted by individual judges in lower courts anyways, so slight variation from the original to the translation is not likely to make a significant difference anyways. If there were an egregious error in translation, I'm sure that someone (a professor, student, judge, lawyer, citizen!) would be able to point it out and have the mistranslation corrected.
This opinion blog article discusses Canada's Bill-C232, which would make bilingual fluency in both English and French mandatory for Canadian Supreme Court judges. Proponents of this bill argue that, although the court's rulings can be translated into different languages, the judges themselves should also be bilingual so that they can read the translation and determine if it upholds the ruling's original intention. In this blog, the Calgary Herald argues that this places an unnecessary, unfair restriction on the pool of Supreme Court nominees, and claims that this bill is politically motivated.
I think that it's just interesting to be able to have this debate in the first place. Canada has two official languages (English and French), and I'm assuming this means that official government business must reflect this language duality. In class, we talked about how even the best translated texts could lose some of their original meaning in the process of translation. But this situation greatly magnifies the issue, because a slight change in meaning could supposedly result in the miscarriage of law.
Though I find proponents of this bill bring up an interesting point, I agree with the author of this article in that I do not think that the justices need to be bilingual in order to function within the government. I know that in the United States, the law is often interpreted by individual judges in lower courts anyways, so slight variation from the original to the translation is not likely to make a significant difference anyways. If there were an egregious error in translation, I'm sure that someone (a professor, student, judge, lawyer, citizen!) would be able to point it out and have the mistranslation corrected.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Gulf Coast Oil Spill is ... Chocolate Milk?
Original article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/gene-taylor-mississippi-c_n_561362.html
Just two weeks ago, a BP oil drill exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, slowing dumping its contents - an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil a day - into the ocean. Needless to say, the effects of this explosion will be catastrophic. In addition to the damage done to the environment and wildlife in the area, businesses who located on the coast - tourism companies, fisheries, etc. - are faced with considerable loss of income. As Washington insiders caught wind of the incident, I heard many phrases used to describe the event. Some called this "Obama's Katrina" while words like "accountability," "action," and "response" were thrown about. But one description in particular caught my attention.
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss) downplayed the consequences of the explosion, saying that "it's not too terrible" and that the "chocolate-milk looking spill will break up naturally." Chocolate-milk? Break up "naturally"? While it is true that crude oil will react to the compounds on sea water to eventually disintegrate naturally, 5,000 barrels of oil pumping into the ocean is hardly natural, let alone subject to natural processes. Also, what's with the chocolate milk comparison? Are we supposed to accept this incongruous comparison of an economically and environmentally disastrous event to a childhood favorite that fills our elementary school cafeterias?
It's not surprising that this controversial comparison was cut out from a transcript of Taylor's remarks uploaded to his official House.gov website. But why make these controversial, arguably inaccurate claims on these ongoing events? What's his motive? I did some digging around, and I discovered that Taylor has consistently supported legislation to expand offshore oil drilling. According to a thinkprogress.org webpage, he voted to lift drilling in ANWR, and voted against the House's clean energy bill. Certainly, by downplaying the effects of this incident he can affect public opinion on offshore drilling, presumably to fit his own perspectives. Further, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Big Oil companies - Chevron, Exxon, and BP - contribute to Taylor's campaign coffers (if they haven't been doing so already).
This article is one of the most interesting documentations of politically-charged language in recent news. This particular type of language, which indirectly seeks to defend one's position on a certain issue by persuading the public, is not as common as directly stating one's position and rallying public opinion to support that position. I certainly look forward to examining this issue in more detail as more developments emerge. In the meantime, we're left with images of chocolate milk swirling around in the Gulf poisoning wildlife and bankrupting small businesses.
Just two weeks ago, a BP oil drill exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, slowing dumping its contents - an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil a day - into the ocean. Needless to say, the effects of this explosion will be catastrophic. In addition to the damage done to the environment and wildlife in the area, businesses who located on the coast - tourism companies, fisheries, etc. - are faced with considerable loss of income. As Washington insiders caught wind of the incident, I heard many phrases used to describe the event. Some called this "Obama's Katrina" while words like "accountability," "action," and "response" were thrown about. But one description in particular caught my attention.
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss) downplayed the consequences of the explosion, saying that "it's not too terrible" and that the "chocolate-milk looking spill will break up naturally." Chocolate-milk? Break up "naturally"? While it is true that crude oil will react to the compounds on sea water to eventually disintegrate naturally, 5,000 barrels of oil pumping into the ocean is hardly natural, let alone subject to natural processes. Also, what's with the chocolate milk comparison? Are we supposed to accept this incongruous comparison of an economically and environmentally disastrous event to a childhood favorite that fills our elementary school cafeterias?
It's not surprising that this controversial comparison was cut out from a transcript of Taylor's remarks uploaded to his official House.gov website. But why make these controversial, arguably inaccurate claims on these ongoing events? What's his motive? I did some digging around, and I discovered that Taylor has consistently supported legislation to expand offshore oil drilling. According to a thinkprogress.org webpage, he voted to lift drilling in ANWR, and voted against the House's clean energy bill. Certainly, by downplaying the effects of this incident he can affect public opinion on offshore drilling, presumably to fit his own perspectives. Further, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Big Oil companies - Chevron, Exxon, and BP - contribute to Taylor's campaign coffers (if they haven't been doing so already).
This article is one of the most interesting documentations of politically-charged language in recent news. This particular type of language, which indirectly seeks to defend one's position on a certain issue by persuading the public, is not as common as directly stating one's position and rallying public opinion to support that position. I certainly look forward to examining this issue in more detail as more developments emerge. In the meantime, we're left with images of chocolate milk swirling around in the Gulf poisoning wildlife and bankrupting small businesses.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Translating the first five verses of Genesis.
(1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (2) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (3) And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (4) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. -Genesis 1:1-5
Unfortunately, I'm not fluent enough in another language to translate this material into a different language. However, I am able to read and interpret a translation in Korean:
창세기 1
1태초에 하나님이 천지를 창조하시니라
2땅이 혼돈하고 공허하며 흑암이 깊음 위에 있고 하나님의 신은 수면에 운행하시니라
3하나님이 가라사대 빛이 있으라 하시매 빛이 있었고
4그 빛이 하나님의 보시기에 좋았더라 하나님이 빛과 어두움을 나누사
5빛을 낮이라 칭하시고 어두움을 밤이라 칭하시니라 저녁이 되며 아침이 되니 이는 첫째 날이니라
The first thing to note about this translation is the tense of the text. The English NIV version uses a standard past tense to describe God's Creation. The Korean translation, however, uses a more complex tense that is known as present tense in the blunt style. The connotations of these two tenses are different. The blunt style embodies a more declarative tone, one that asserts authority and truth more so than a standard English past tense. In verse 3, the translation appropriately uses the honorific form of the verb "to say". After all, who could be more deserving of respect in a culture than God Himself? The language surrounding verse 4 is particularly interesting, because the translator uses the verb "나누다" - which means literally to share or divide amongst a group of people - rather than the verb "to separate." Therefore, the meaning is slightly different. Instead of simply saying that God separated darkness from light, the Korean passage suggests that the light was allocated differently, so that when no light was allocated, there was darkness. Finally, the last thing to note about this translation is that while the English version uses the word "God" repeatedly to emphasize the subject of each verse, the Korean uses "하나님" only twice. By combining the honorific tense with verbs that are only associated with high figures of authority, the subject is - in a sense - implied through the verb.
Unfortunately, I'm not fluent enough in another language to translate this material into a different language. However, I am able to read and interpret a translation in Korean:
창세기 1
1태초에 하나님이 천지를 창조하시니라
2땅이 혼돈하고 공허하며 흑암이 깊음 위에 있고 하나님의 신은 수면에 운행하시니라
3하나님이 가라사대 빛이 있으라 하시매 빛이 있었고
4그 빛이 하나님의 보시기에 좋았더라 하나님이 빛과 어두움을 나누사
5빛을 낮이라 칭하시고 어두움을 밤이라 칭하시니라 저녁이 되며 아침이 되니 이는 첫째 날이니라
The first thing to note about this translation is the tense of the text. The English NIV version uses a standard past tense to describe God's Creation. The Korean translation, however, uses a more complex tense that is known as present tense in the blunt style. The connotations of these two tenses are different. The blunt style embodies a more declarative tone, one that asserts authority and truth more so than a standard English past tense. In verse 3, the translation appropriately uses the honorific form of the verb "to say". After all, who could be more deserving of respect in a culture than God Himself? The language surrounding verse 4 is particularly interesting, because the translator uses the verb "나누다" - which means literally to share or divide amongst a group of people - rather than the verb "to separate." Therefore, the meaning is slightly different. Instead of simply saying that God separated darkness from light, the Korean passage suggests that the light was allocated differently, so that when no light was allocated, there was darkness. Finally, the last thing to note about this translation is that while the English version uses the word "God" repeatedly to emphasize the subject of each verse, the Korean uses "하나님" only twice. By combining the honorific tense with verbs that are only associated with high figures of authority, the subject is - in a sense - implied through the verb.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Response to Abu Dhubai Film Commission now accepting Arabic scripts
At first, I thought I had mis-read the title of the article, and that it said that the organization had only begun accepting scripts in English. So I was surprised to discover that the Abu Dhubai Film Commission, an organization based in the capital city of the United Arab Emirates only recently decided to accept scripts written in Arabic, the native tongue of the land.
This situation certainly poses an interesting question. Why would a Middle Eastern film commission elect to only accept submissions in English over its native language, Arabic? I believe it may be related to the idea that certain languages are frequently associated with specific things, which in this case, is the film industry. Hollywood has long been considered to be the epicenter of blockbuster movies, and many of its productions have been translated or dubbed into different languages worldwide. So it makes sense that some people associate movies with English, as they often listen to the movie in English and only read the sub-titles in their native language.
So why start accepting submissions in Arabic now? A resurgence in nationalistic feelings? A growing sense of resentment to the Western world - the US included? A desire to establish new, independent standards for Arabic film rather than relying on foreign ones? As one examines the situation further, it's fascinating to see how a simple act of deciding to accept scripts in more than one language can seem to have countless implications.
On a side note, I'm trying to learn Arabic now, and it's so difficult! When I first glanced through the alphabet and started practicing the characters, I realized I was reading from left to right (and not right to left, as is customary in Arabic) and had learned the entire alphabet backwards. Also, when individual letters combine to form words, they morph into a force of its own, twisting into new shapes and producing new stripes, dots, etc. I wonder how far I'll get with this ...
Monday, April 19, 2010
Response to "Vanishing Words, Vanishing World"
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_cd98cfea-4752-11df-ae10-001cc4c03286.html
This article discusses the fascinating topic of language death, or the process of a language becoming extinct through lack of use and application. This specific article looks into the Lakota language, one of many Native American languages spoken within the United States.
Language extinction is frequently viewed in a negative light, and is often connected to the extinction of a culture, a people's history. But I think that language extinction should also be viewed in a more positive, practical light as well. It is true that one's language is an important part of a culture. However, will one's past really be lost because one can't communicate in the native tongue?
When Africans were transported to the United States during the slave trade, they brought with them their own language, which eventually became integrated into the English spoken in the United States. But African-Americans still talked about and celebrated their origins in their new creole language, and passed on various cultural traditions to their children. Furthermore, some words of their native languages live on today in the English language: words like "banana," "voodoo," etc. In a sense, their language has not necessarily died out, but rather become immortalized in the more mainstream, commonly used language.
The creation and extinction of language is a natural - and in my opinion - inevitable process. Latin, which used to be the language of the ruling class and Church hundreds of years ago, is now considered a dead language in that it is not used in everyday life. Furthermore, languages often evolve to fit the needs of society. For example, the English alphabet has its roots in the ancient Greek alphabet. While the death of a language may hold certain social implications, it should be viewed more as a natural process rather than a negative one.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Response to language used in articles describing Polish president's death
For the past few days, the news of Polish President Kacynski's death has dominated news networks, examined and discussed by various media sources. In response to this proliferation of news, I examined three different online news sources in three different languages: an AlJazeera article written in English, an ElMundo.es article written in Spanish, and a ChosonIlbo article written in Korean. I juxtaposed the language used in these sources describing Kacynski's death with that of mainstream American news sources (such as CNN) and found the differences quite interesting. Following my instructor's suggestion, I focused my examination on the different words and phrases used to describe Kacynski's death. I deviated slightly from the exact instructions - which were to find five sources from the same country in that country's official language - and found three different sources in three different languages instead to focus more closely on the difference between American and foreign news coverage.
Out of the four sources I studied, the CNN.com article was the only news source to claim that President Kacynski was "killed" in the plane crash (in the actual news headlines). The AlJazeera article, written in English, mentions that the President "dies" in the headline (but later gives details of the crash - "... killing all 135 passengers on board." The Korea ChosonIlbo article's headline reads: "폴란드 대통령 부부 탄 비행기 추락, 97명 전원사망" which literally translates into "Poland President and First Lady in Plane Crash, 97 person powerful disaster." The term "kill" or even "death" is entirely absent from the headline. The ElMundo similarly avoids mentioning the Spanish verb "to kill" - matar. ElMundo's headline reads: "Muere el presidente del Polonia al estrellarse su avión en Rusia" - "The President of Poland dies in his airplane crash in Russia." The language within the article avoids mentioning "kill" as well: su gabinete presidencial y los principales jefes del Ejército del país han perdido la vida ..." - the presidential cabinet and the Supreme judges of the country have lost their lives. Another example reads: "En la catástrofe han muerto 97 personas," which in this context loosely translates into "the catastrophe has killed 97 personas," but with the verb "morir" which holds a different connotation to the verb "matar." All three foreign sources' headlines differ significantly to the CNN article's headlines, which reads "Plane crash kills Polish president."
A plane crash killed the Polish president. If this statement were translated into most other non-English languages, the connotations would imply that the plane crash - a living, sentient being - had the motive and capability to murder the Polish president. I think that's why most foreign news sources avoided using the verb "to kill" directly in its respective language. So why do reputable American news sources, written in American English, use the term "to kill" so loosely? This frequent use of "kill" surfaces in other news reports across all networks as well. Just this week, I heard on TV that a car crash "killed" an entire family and that an individual "was killed" in an apartment fire (this is not to say that American news sources refer to death with the verb "to kill" exclusively, just more frequently than foreign sources).
For some reason, Americans seem to be obsessed with what I like to call "violent language." The use of the verb "to kill" is only a small sampling of this linguistic tendency. For example, the government tends to label many of its programs with the prefix "War on-." The "War on Poverty" was supposed to destroy the enemy that was underprivileged or unemployed families and individuals living in America. The "War on Terror" insisted on defining a seemingly vast, unidentifiable enemy.
Why do Americans feel it is necessary to assign blame (to some unknown, unidentifiable force) in accidents such as plane crashes or fires? Why do Americans need to define the enemy and contribute to the "us" vs "them" attitude through language? It's certainly an interesting linguistic pattern that I look forward to discussing more in depth in class tomorrow.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Response to "Language-immersion program boosts Seattle students"
I found this article, which points to the success of dual-language ESL programs, particularly fascinating because I've recently become interested in the topic of second-language acquisition, particularly in younger children. Dual-language programs are significantly controversial in the United States, where proponents of "English only" educating oppose teaching in any language other than English. However, this article - among countless others - suggests that using a child's native language to learn English is more efficient and effective.
Last quarter, I learned about the "Parisian man" analogy that ties into this topic of debate. Imagine that you - an American - have just been given a high-up job in Paris, and you must move there to begin your work. Although you don't speak French, you feel that accepting this job offer is the best move for your career and agree to live in Paris. Considering that you have absolutely no knowledge of French language or culture, would you prefer receiving a brochure - in English - that outlines directions to and from the airport, instructions on how to use public transit to get from your home to work, the addresses of local eateries, laundromats, places of interest, a chart of common French greetings and phrases, and everything else you'll need to live in Paris? Or would you rather receive the same brochure in French or not receive any brochure at all and simply be pushed into a completely foreign land that speaks a completely foreign language?
Needless to say, most people would choose to receive the information brochure in English. Proponents of dual-language teaching argue that it is most effective to teach English in the learner's native tongue. Complete submersion - that is putting a child who speaks no English into a regular class - is ineffective as the child will inevitably fall behind his other classmates. And teaching in English to a non-native speaker would similarly be ineffective as well.
When you learn a foreign language in high school, most teachers introduce the language - let's say Spanish - in English. As a student progresses further into the language program - perhaps the fourth year - instruction may occur just in Spanish, but not until the students receive the firm foundation and background they need in the language. I believe that ESL programs in the United States should follow this same strategy, and I am therefore a strong supporter of dual-language ESL programs in this country.
On a completely random and unrelated note, I found this online and thought it might be interesting to share. Basically, it's an application that provides the definition to a certain word by providing a map of how that word is related to other words and phrases. Pretty neat, huh?
http://www.visuwords.com/
Monday, April 5, 2010
just for fun
the swedish broadcasting network launched this viral video campaign to encourage people to pay their broadcasting fees. i thought it was funny ... share with friends!
http://en.tackfilm.se/?id=1270452910204RA52
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Response to "Facebook Changes Like Language to Increase Engagement"
This article discusses Facebook's "like" feature which offers Facebook users a convenient method of interaction that is less involved than a full-fledged comment. The article focuses on the use of the "like" feature in relation to becoming a fan of a Facebook page, but I feel like there is a lot more to discuss about the "like" feature itself.
In many ways, this new feature has contributed to a certain level of laziness in social interaction. Prior to the creation of this feature, friends had to expend the time and energy to think of a somewhat relevant response to a user's status updates. But now users can simply "like" one's activity and go about their merry way. This article claims that the "like" feature is a "lightweight method" that requires "no heavy investment," but I feel that this feature is also detrimental to deep, meaningful social interaction as well. Social interaction should require more than just a click of a button.
On another note, the "like" feature also allows a user to discern the level of friendship and "connectedness" with the people who respond to one's profile activity. Often (but not always), close friends will make the effort to comment on status updates while casual acquaintances (or complete randos) will only "like" the update and refrain from commenting. It's interesting how a seemingly simple feature such as the "like" button can shed light on significant social consequences.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
My name's Yihwan, and I was born and raised in Burbank, CA which is a suburb right outside of downtown LA. Both of my parents are Korean, and while I was little I spoke and understood Korean fluently. But after I started attending kindergarden and learned English, I slowly lost my native tongue, a phenomenon which I guess is kind of common among second-generation Americans. I tried to learn Korean again when I was in middle school, but I failed. But now that I'm at Stanford, I hope to get some of that lost language/heritage/culture/whathaveyou back!
create your own visited country map or check our Venice travel guide
My experiences speaking Korean/English growing up have shaped an interest in how second-generation individuals learn/lose their native tongues while growing up in an environment that speaks a different language. Since I'm a prospective polisci major, I'm also interested in learning how politicians use language ("crafted talk," discourse of theater, etc.) to advance their agenda. I'm also interested in learning what role language plays in power struggles as well.
I'm looking forward to learning more about language while taking this class!
create your own visited country map or check our Venice travel guide
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)