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.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)