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.

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 ...

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.

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.

CNN article: http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/10/plane-crash-kills-polish-president/

AlJazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/04/20104107407467926.html

ChosonIlbo: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/04/10/2010041000475.html

El Mundo: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2010/04/10/internacional/1270884924.html

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/

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

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.