My Term Paper: Do we think differently in Serbian and English?

Term Paper
Psych 17N: Language and Society
Nikola Milanovic

Do we think differently in Serbian and English?

If one were to call up their friend, in English, and ask them ‘to meet at restaurant,’ the sentence would be grammatically incorrect and informationally incomplete. However, in Serbian, this sentence would be normal. Why is that, and does it have any impact on the way speakers of the two respective languages think? The general theory of this paper is that differences can exist between languages, which cause people to think differently in those languages. The focus of the paper specifically is on the differences between Serbian and English in information pertinent to communication. The hypothesis of this essay is that, because Serbian lacks the articles ‘a’ and ‘the,’ speakers of the two languages communicate differently, which both causes and is caused by different patterns of thought. This essay will lie out a hypothetical experiment to confirm the hypothesis.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis explains a theory that accounts for why we may have different thought processes in different languages. The hypothesis states that our thinking is determined by language and that people who speak different languages perceive and think about the world differently. (The Sapir) According to linguist Edward Sapir, “No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” (Sapir 1958: 69)
Linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf expands on this theory, commenting that “We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. […] We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language.” (Whorf 1940: 213-214)
There are many criticisms of this theory. Modern linguists generally do not accept the notion that language imprisons people into certain patterns of thought. However, the view that language has no impact on how people think is also widely rejected by linguists. (“Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis”) The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis does lend itself to the experiment laid out in this essay to test the differences in thought patterns between Serbian and English, however. Regardless of whether the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is itself correct or false, this essay seeks to demonstrate that, at least in the specific case laid out, language does play a key role in determining how people think.
The definition of ‘the’ states that the word is “used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an.” (Dictionary.com) Conversely, ‘a’ is defined as meaning “not any particular or certain one of a class or group.” (Dictionary.com)
This changes the nature of which nouns are referred to in which ways with the specific articles. Whereas little information is necessary when referring to a general object, such as ‘a house,’ specific, shared information is necessary for communication about a specific object, such as ‘the house.’ In English, when the word ‘the’ is used, such as in the phrase “I lost the game today,” certain background knowledge is necessary between the speaker and their audience in order for the idea of the sentence to be communicated effectively. In Serbian, the sentence would be rephrased as “Ja sam gubio igrati danas” (I lost game today). Though both phrases can communicate the idea of a specific game, the information presented by them is different. By using ‘the’ in the English sentence, it is normally inferred that the two speakers are both referring to one game, which implies that they a) have previous knowledge of the game and b) have previously communicated about it. It at least implies that the speaker believes that his audience knows which game is being referred to. In Serbian, the object in the sentence is less specified due to a lack of articles; the ‘game’ referred to could be any general game because there is no implication in the phrasing that the speaker and their audience a) both know of the game or b) have previously communicated about it. In translation to English, it is necessary for the Serbian speaker to incorporate the articles ‘a’ or ‘the’ in order to indicate whether they are referring to a game that they believe the audience doesn’t know about or one that both parties know about (if I were to say “I lost a game today,” the sentence would require further explanation, whereas telling someone that “I lost the game” would imply that we both know of the game referred to). Thus, when the sentence is translated from English to Serbian and then back to English (word for word), there is less information contained in the phrasing.
What does this mean for thought processes in the two languages? There are multiple possible implications for the impact of this linguistic difference on the thought processes of the languages’ speakers. Firstly, by using the word ‘the’ in English, the speaker forces the audience to bring up a recollection of information in order to establish what is being referred to by the article. Using the word ‘a’ instead would imply that there is no shared knowledge of a specific object between the speaker and their audience, and would therefore not require the audience to browse their memory for information regarding the exact object. Using the already given example, if the speaker says, “I lost the game,” the audience must remember specifically which game in question the speaker lost. By saying “I lost a game,” the speaker implies that the audience has no previous knowledge of the game, and that therefore more explanation is required on the speaker’s part in order to specify which game they are referring to. Because Serbian does not have this distinction, “Ja sam gubio igrati danas” will make the audience automatically think of what game the speaker could assume they both have knowledge of. However, even if the speaker and their audience can communicate about the same game without specifying which one it is, the lack of distinction still exists. This is one way in which the difference in articles can create different thought processes.
A test must be run in order to determine whether this linguistic difference does actually create the different thought processes outlined. The test (which will be referred to in this paper as the Cup Test) proceeds as follows:
1) The tester brings the test subject to a table with many cups (preferably ceramic or glass cups, which will make noise if dropped and broken).
2) The tester proceeds to hold a conversation with the test subject, in which they mention that one of the cups is their favorite of the many, and highlight or show that cup specifically to the test subject.
3) After the conversation, the tester asks the test subject to leave the room.
4) After a short while, the tester comes out of the room and explains that they dropped a cup. Run in English, the tester should say, “I dropped a cup” in half the tests and “I dropped the cup” in half the tests. In Serbian, the tester would say “Ja sam ispustio pehar.” (I dropped cup).
The test should be run so that the test subject is unaware of the true nature of what the test concerns and unaware that the cup has any significance to the test. The conversation should regard a topic unrelated to the cup, and the presence of the cups should be self-explanatory (eg: left over from a previous meal), so as not to arouse suspicion that the cups play a role in the experiment.
According to the hypothesis, the test subjects will have different reactions to the statement of the tester. The test subject who is told, “I dropped the cup” in English should automatically assume that the tester is referring to the specific cup they highlighted in conversation. This is because the use of the word ‘the’ implies that there is a shared knowledge between the tester and the subject regarding which cup was dropped. The test subject who is told, “I dropped a cup” in English should respond by asking which cup was dropped (and possibly whether it was the favorite cup). This response should occur because the article ‘a’ generalizes the cup in question, meaning that the tester is not referring to a specific cup. As such, the phrase lacks sufficient information to inform the test subject which cup was dropped. The test subject of the Serbian version of the test should automatically assume that the cup dropped was the favorite cup highlighted in conversation. This is because the lack of articles to specify which cup was dropped should force the test subject to consult their memory in order to determine whether they can assume a specific cup is being referred to.
It is reasonable to assume that the Serbian test subject will react as noted because Serbian conversation points to such a reaction: Serbian speakers do not always question which object someone is referring to if they can assume the reference is made to a specific object of which both parties have knowledge. If it were the case that Serbian speakers did not make links to specific objects when they were referred to generally (such as in the sentence “I lost game”), the speakers would constantly be asking clarification questions about what is being referred to. As such, the test subject in question should automatically assume that the cup dropped was the favorite, instead of asking the tester to clarify which cup was dropped.
There are, however, limitations and ambiguities present in this test. The first limitation is one of an independent variable that cannot be controlled: whether the information is pertinent enough to the test subject. Because memory functions differently for different people (as exhibited by those with or without photographic memory or by people who can remember longer and in more detail than others), the test subjects will all consider different information in their conversations with the tester to be pertinent. As such, some test subjects may remember that a reference was made to a specific cup, while other test subjects might not.
The second ambiguity is whether or not it is possible to gauge the responses of the test subjects. For instance, though some may remember the specific, highlighted cup and assume the cup in question is the highlighted one, they may not give any indication that they have this recollection. Also, though the test subjects who hear the phrase with ‘a’ instead of ‘the’ might not be able to assume that the cup dropped was the favorite one, they still may not give any indication that they do not know this, and might not question which cup was dropped.
The question to answer now is whether the different reactions of the test subjects actually do point to different underlying thought processes. On the communicative side (the side of the person speaking), the thought process is different when considering how to communicate a thought in the two languages. The English speaker has to recall a) whether they share pertinent information with their audience or b) whether they can assume they do. Based on this consideration, they decide whether or not to use ‘a’ or ‘the’ in their sentence. The Serbian speaker doesn’t have to undergo this consideration. On the receptive side, the use of the word ‘the’ in an English phrase is equitable to the phrase’s Serbian translation, in that the phrases both cause the audience to recollect the specific object of the sentence. The use of ‘a,’ however, in an English phrase creates a different thought process than the Serbian translation of the same phrase. This is because the use of ‘a’ in the sentence implies that the speaker and their audience do not share common knowledge of the sentence’s object, thus the audience doesn’t have to attempt to remember which specific object the speaker is referring to. This difference in memory searching points to the idea that the lack of articles in Serbian causes different thought processes in Serbian than exist in English, because a specific object is always assumed.
It can be argued, however, that no actual distinction exists between the English and Serbian thought processes on the receptive side. The similarity between a Serbian sentence with an object and its English counterpart with the word ‘the’ could imply that this difference in information is just a difference in whether an ‘adjective’ is given in English that allows for clarification of which object is being referred to. As such, it can be argued that the use of the word ‘a’ in English is just an example of an ‘adjectival word’ being employed to specify an object.
However, this view of the articles ‘a’ and ‘the’ as fulfilling the same purpose as adjectives in conveying information is difficult to accept. Because these articles do not exist in Serbian, without sufficient adjectives or description, Serbian speakers are always forced to consider the many possible objects that someone may be referring to, and to either select one object from the many or to question which, if any specific, object is being referred to. As such, the words ‘a’ and ‘the’ do not play the same role as adjectives in that they merely describe words by distinguishing between the specific and the general; they are linguistic tools that exist to create a lighter burden of thought for English speakers. Because of these articles, more information is given in an English sentence than in its Serbian counterpart, which allows English speakers to determine whether they should be attempting to recollect what is being referred to. Therefore, this is where the difference in thought lies: English contains information in its sentence structures that allows its speakers to determine whether they should be recalling a specific object, or whether the object in question is general, and not specific to those engaging in a conversation. Serbian, by not employing these articles, automatically bypasses this initial consideration and forces Serbian speakers to attempt to recall what is specifically being referred to in a sentence before they can determine if a) a specific object is being referred to or b) the reference is only to a general object.
Therefore, on the communicative and receptive sides, it has been shown that there is a clear difference in thought processes regarding how Serbian and English speakers process information. The experiment, for the aforementioned reasons, should confirm the hypothesis that the existence of the articles ‘a’ and ‘the’ causes English speakers to think differently from Serbian speakers.

Works Cited

Dictionary.com. 2007. Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. December 4 2007.
Specific entries: ‘a’ and ‘the’.

Sapir, Edward. Culture, Language, and Personality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1958.

“Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 4 December 2007


The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. 18 September 1995. Aberystwyth University Department of Media and Communications Studies. 4 December 2007.


Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1956.

The Philosophy Of Language

Somehow, this week, there is an article I found which pretty much sums up the subject I was trying to touch upon in my last post. The first paragraph reads "We are symbol makers because we can conceptualize. A symbol is an empty sound until we associate a meaning with that sound, until we fill the symbol with an idea, a notion, a concept. We look at nature and we name things, categorize items, classify types, and define the properties of objects. The symbols become numinous, take on lives of themselves, then spread like viruses from person to person, from generation to generation, from age to age."
The author of the article basically focuses on the premise which I have repeatedly brought up that language can control or shape reality. He focuses specifically on the manipulation of language and the connection between language and past experiences that can bias people when they hear certain phrases. Following his example, we may think of red people wearing animal skins and feathers when we hear the phrase 'Native American.' As he says, our personal experiences shape how we interpret different 'symbols' of communication. I completely agree with the idea that this happens, but in order to evaluate it, it's necessary to consider the counterpoint: do words have a definite, unbiased meaning? I think that our initial education tends to instill in us the belief that language is definite, that words do have a specific meaning. The American school system's stress on the importance of facts to analysis highlights the ability of the dictionary to accurately define what a word represents. Thus, when we chance upon a word in literature that we don't understand, we can look that word up in the dictionary to obtain the exact meaning (this approach obviously wouldn't work for most non-literal meanings or for idiomatic phrases). As such, the general concept of language seems to be that words are concrete symbols which we use when their meaning applies. But does that mean the context of their usage has no effect? Consider the word 'Nazi': in modern society, the Nazi movement is almost non-existent, and instead, American history education is specifically geared to show the harms of Nazism. So would using the word 'Nazi' in 1930's Germany and modern America bring up the same meaning to different people? The standard definitional approach in American grade school education would suggest that these two words would have the same meaning. While it probably can't be argued that the meanings in the two respective contexts would be mutually exclusive, I think that it's possible to assume the two parties involved would not interpret the words in the same manner. Different connotations would arise for both parties: for the German, perhaps one of a better economy, better infrastructure, and national pride (positive connotations). For the American, one of rights infractions, genocide, and war (negative connotations). Note that my analysis here makes rather sweeping generalizations, but they should be justifiable without requiring explanation, given the assumption we're all operating on the same historical and cultural information and understanding (which itself is a heavy assumption).
Thus, when the author of the article asks "Do the meanings that you give to symbols divide you or separate you from others who are just like you? Are the meanings for the symbols in your head accurate definitions or do you react to the connotations (the emotional content) associated with those symbols by past experience or cultural conditioning?," I think the notion he supports has some validity. I think we react to different symbols based in large part upon the past contexts in which we've encountered those symbols. As such, I think it's possible to reaffirm what I was saying in my last post (sorry I didn't step it up and disagree with myself), and to agree with the author, when he says "Language shapes reality because we create symbols that represent objects and abstract concepts."

article: http://www.swans.com/library/art13/gsmith97.html

Warning: The Majority of this is Personal Reflection and Opinion

Based on yesterday's discussion, I'm going to make the focus of this post the quote from the movie Waking Life. I copied the quote in it's entirety at the bottom of the post. Basically, it seems to me that the woman quoted could easily have just graduated from our class (or, as is more likely, a linguistics major). She gives an interesting theory on the development of language, saying that our communication basically started off as a survivalist feature. So we would express those things directly related to our physical needs. As it developed, however, we became capable of expressing more complex and abstract thoughts. Since we've been talking about this in class for months now, I'm not going to elaborate on my or anyone else's theory of how language came about. (Since Lera quite pointedly noted that those theories, while interesting and fun, are just stories, each equally plausible).
Instead, I'm going to concentrate on the problem of whether communication is realistically possible. We perceive language to be a functional form of communication: with our coded system of expression, we can communicate our ideas to each other. Obviously, I don't think anyone views language as a 'perfect' form of communication: there are obviously feelings, ideas, and intangible notions we can never truly express. But language has a method of grouping thoughts and feelings into general categories which allow us to achieve a generalized form of expression. For instance, if I feel a mixture of anger, annoyance, irritation, and impatience, but I can't label that mixture, language directs me to the word 'frustration' (the quote asks what the meaning of this word really is). But does that always mean that language directs us to the most adequate definition possible for our feelings? The idea that language can express our emotions seems to restrict our emotional spectrum to neatly compartmentalized categories, each more-or-less independent. However, I feel personally that this is not really how feelings work. I can feel a mixture of frustration and anguish, or simultaneous despair and joy, and language will never really give me a sufficient symbol to express such feelings. Is this due to a lack of vocabulary on my part or a lack in language to fully encompass my emotional scope? My hypothesis (though it's impossible to prove) is the latter.
Categorization is an inherent linguistic feature that creates a disconnect between how the world is and how we express its existence. In language, we as people need definition in order to differentiate anything. I can define myself through repeated categorization in order to differentiate myself from anyone else; this pyramid structure would look something like this: human -> male -> white -> brown hair -> blue eyes -> American ... (and on and on). This linguistic process is applied in order to differentiate everything: we have base definitions (like 'table') in dictionaries, and then we draw upon specific features in order to define and categories more specific objects.
Two problems arise from this: firstly, without a hugely specific definition, we never fully communicate what we have in our minds. Secondly, this divisive 'us and them,' 'this and that' construct presents a false conception of reality. Let me explain the first problem: if I have a picture in my mind (let's say a specific house or a specific table), and I attempt to describe this picture to someone drawing it, will they ever be able to draw the picture exactly as it is in my mind? If they don't, it's possible to default to the explanation that they have imperfect artistic skills. So what if I went to Da Vinci and asked him to draw what was in my mind? My personal theory is that, even if I were to describe a picture in my mind to someone with perfect artistic ability, they would still fail to recreate the picture in my mind exactly. This points to the idea that language can never fully communicate exactly what we're thinking of. When I say 'house,' the person I say it to gets a completely different idea in his mind of a house than I get in my mind, based on personal experience. This disconnect is amplified in the case of more intangible ideas, such as 'love'. Also, the person will never be able to approach painting the picture in my mind unless I define, redefine, and redefine specifically how the picture looks. Thus, language inherently enforces upon us a system of continuous redefinition in order to draw distinctions.
Now onto the second problem: does this construct give us a false conception of reality? My opinion is that it does. As I have noted, it seems impossible for language to fully encompass the ideas we are trying to express. However, another aspect of language's necessity of differentiation is that it may end up dividing things that are essentially interconnected, overlapping, or even the same. This takes me back to the initial example of emotion: we can never truly know how to express our feelings in an absolutist way that fully represents our specific feeling. We can't even be sure that other people feel emotions the same way (or to the same degree) as us. Thus, it's difficult to conclude that language's differentiation of emotions into categories is ever accurate. Is there really a difference between being 'angry' and 'mad,' between 'frustration' and 'irritation'? I think that, by dividing such feelings into categories, language enforces upon us a false construct of reality.
That's my rant/schpiel for today.

whole script: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/waking-life-script-transcript-linklater.html

Creation seems to come out of imperfection.
It seems to come out of a striving and a frustration.
And this is where I think language came from.
I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation...
and have some sort of connection with one another.
And it had to be easy when it was just simple survival.
Like, you know, "water." We came up with a sound for that.
Or, "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you." We came up with a sound for that.
But when it gets really interesting, I think,
is when we use that same system of symbols to communicate...
all the abstract and intangible things that we're experiencing.
What is, like, frustration? Or what is anger or love?
When I say "love,"
the sound comes out of my mouth...
and it hits the other person's ear,
travels through this Byzantine conduit in their brain,
you know, through their memories of love or lack of love,
and they register what I'm saying and say yes, they understand.
But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert.
They're just symbols. They're dead, you know?
And so much of our experience is intangible.
So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's unspeakable.
And yet, you know, when we communicate with one another,
and we--
we feel that we have connected,
and we think that we're understood,
I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion.
And that feeling might be transient, but I think it's what we live for.

Introduction to the Initiation of Idioms and their Impact

This week's article that I read was on the origin and development of idioms. According to the article, "An idiom generally is an expression different from its literal meaning. Often, only people in a particular region or class understand it." An example would be something like 'Hair of the dog,' which, according to the article, means "Another drink of the same to help cure a hangover." This comes from the old belief that a bite from a mad dog could be cured if you put hair from the same dog's tail on the wound."
The question I want to explore in this post is whether idioms are a positive or negative force in language. For the purposes of this exploration, "'Idiom' is a very loose term that can mean anything from the colloquial to a metaphor [...] An idiom starts as a phrase, becomes an idiom when it catches on, and then dies as a cliché." (from article)
Do idioms ultimately end up adding to or hurting language? My theory is that idioms help in the pursuit of developing languages, but ultimately hinder people's understanding of these languages. As quoted in the article, "Susan Gass, a professor of linguistics and languages at Michigan State University, believes some of the long-used phrases stem from something real, but sometimes the particular reference disappears over time." Because the reference for idioms disappears (her example being that of someone sounding like a broken record), the inferred meaning of idioms may retain while the literal meaning may disappear (as records have). This ultimately makes idioms more difficult to interpret as they progress through generations. Idioms also present language barriers between geographical areas and cultures. For instance, without the belief in the hair of a mad dog curing the bite, the phrase 'hair of the dog' cannot be tied to any literal significance, thus is much harder to translate. This becomes a significant difficulty when the idiom replaces an alternative way of expressing an idea, so that it is impossible to fully explain or comprehend what is being said with an idiom because no other phrase exists that encompasses the same meaning. This could easily apply to the addage we talked about in class: 'the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak' translating into 'the vodka is strong but the meat is rotten.' Either phrase in the other language doesn't have the same traditional basis, thus is incomprehensible. Taking another example from personal experience, in Spanish class we learned traditional idioms such as 'vete a friar asparago' (go fry asparagus); these obviously have no translatable inferred meaning in English. If they do, I certainly can't understand it.
However, it can also be argued that they add to language by developing it beyond its initial literal phase. Professor of Cognitive Linguistics George Lakoff argues that most language is, essentially, a metaphor. He points as an example to the idea of English equating time with money (eg: spend time, waste time, invest time...). His idea of language as a metaphor has some merit: when we think about language, essentially, it becomes apparent that language itself usually has no intrinsic ties to the ideas and concepts it depicts (apart from exceptions like onomonopia (sorry about that spelling)). There is no connection between the word 'house' and the actual house itself. Furthermore, the word 'house' doesn't describe any specific house: it is a generalization equally applicable to all houses. In the same way, idioms are generalizations based on specific cases (such as the word 'house' must have initially been based on an actual house or at least idea of one). Thus, it can be argued that idioms themselves are just a feature of a language as it extends past its infancy into a more complex development level, which includes expressing ideas as idioms.

Article at: http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-sundaylifeidioms.artnov25,0,2633476.story

Lack of Languages Learnt Lowers following Linguistic Leap

The article I read today dealt with the increase of instruction in foreign languages in the US. The article reveals that "The latest figures from the Modern Language Association of America, released Tuesday, reflect a major push toward internationalization on college campuses, more government support for language study and simply more interest from students. Over four years, total enrollment in language courses has grown 12.9 percent." However, this is not what interested me the most in the article. What I found particularly interesting is that the most prominently growing language is Arabic. "Arabic is the fastest-growing major language, breaking the top 10 for the first time with just under 24,000 enrollments," according to the article. The amount of students taking Arabic and institutions offering it has more than doubled since 2002.
What accounts for this specific increase? The article hints that "Enrollments in languages such as Russian and Arabic have traditionally spiked with world events." This is a pretty direct hint that languages gain prominence and a need for languages develops as those languages become important to people's direction or goals in life: namely, political and business goals. With the Middle East the current focus of American and international peace efforts, with Iraq the current American overseas military target, and with the political issue of terrorism (namely: Islamic extremist terrorism), Arabic is prominent to many people's direction and goals. Students who wish to follow careers in politics, international relations, or diplomacy and peace have a significant impetus to study Arabic. For the same reasons, the number of students taking Russian spiked during the cold war, at a time where communication between Russia and the US, the two world superpowers, was necessary for any students with a focus on international politics.
Schools are now, in fact, specifically offering languages in the context whereby they are considered most useful such as "medical Spanish, Chinese for business." The importance of situations to language gives birth to language dominance and imperialism: as languages are considered more important to career paths and international affairs, they are more likely to gain prominence in education. Thus, languages fluctuate: just as when the Roman Empire or Sumeria conquered surrounding territories, the necessity of being able to communicate with prominent cultures puts smaller languages on the backburner. Only in the modern era, physical domination isn't necessary for language imperialism. The societies that create technology, job opportunities, and political change draw constituents away from other languages in the same kind of competitive environment that leads to language imperialism.

article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7074638,00.html

Quebec's Qualms with Questionable (phone option) Queue

Quebec has once again dissolved into a heated language dispute over the use of English vs. French when calling the government. Apparently, Quebecois activists "don't like the fact that people who phone into government offices are given the option of linking to an English menu before they hear French instructions." When they make calls to any government auto-response pickup, the first message says 'Press 9 for English.' Apparently, this is enough to spark off a protest in the province, as "Michel Morin, a French language activist [...] and other activists have been bunkered down in a call centre, calling government and municipal offices demanding changes."
I've written about the language debate in Quebec before, and the issue is a long-contested one between a French majority proclaiming that it is being marginalized and a government trying not to discriminate against other minorities. According to the CIA World Factbook (always a trustworthy source), "Canada faces the political challenges of meeting public demands for quality improvements in health care and education services, as well as responding to separatist concerns in predominantly francophone Quebec." The language division is representational of a pervasive cultural boundary between Quebec and the rest of Canada. The legal dispute is a long-lasting one, according to Wikipedia, which began soon after 1977, with "the Charter of the French Language[, which] was a legal framework defining the linguistic rights of Quebecers, and a language management policy giving the state of Quebec the power to intervene in many sectors of public life to promote French as the common language of all citizens." This Charter gave the Quebecois government a virtually unlimited justification for restricting the use of English in the territory. Although Supreme Court rulings have prevented Quebec from enforcing French as the only language of instruction or commercials, the province has still been making attempts to institutionalize French in schools and enforce a French-only rule for businesses (which came up in a previous post).
The fear is that this will heavily marginalize and maybe even eliminate the English-speaking minority in Quebec, as well as repulse future immigration from non-French speaking cultures. Referring to the issue of French vs. English in government phone responses, "Lobbyists for minority rights in Quebec say they find the entire debate ridiculous. 'These guys have got way too much time on their hands,' anglo-rights lawyer Brent Tyler told the Canadian Press. 'They must be scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to complain about if that's what they're coming up with.' Minority rights groups in the province say they are being increasingly marginalized, and English is in danger of disappearing in Quebec." This fear is legitimized by recent bills introduced to submit new immigrants to language testing and make French a prerequisite for running in any elections.
However, activists "said it's French -- not English -- that is under assault. [They say] that's why [one activist's] group has teamed up with another hardline language group, Imperatif francais, in the campaign to provide French before English on the phone. 'It's urgent because French is declining in Montreal,' [they] said, according to CP. '"For us it's a crucial question, it allows the integration of newcomers to Quebec's common culture.'"
The point that I'm trying to make in this post is that language has become a tool in the fight for cultural supremacy in Quebec. Obviously, language is very important to the inhabitants of the province, but it seems increasingly to be playing a role only as a means of asserting Franco-cultural supremacy. Without language as a divisive trait, would there still be such a conflict between these two parties? Language here is used exclusively as a dividing force, regardless of the claims of French activists. The distinctions drawn between French and English point to an official policy of exclusion, which would be much more difficult to enact without the language differences. Apparently, language here acts as a line to seperate parties into opposing sides, and thus stimulate the conflict in the first place. I would like to posit the notion that, without a language separation, there would be no legal or overarching conflict between the citizens of Quebec. But the irony is that, in the presence of distinct languages, the conflict is only fought over what those language differences signify, not over the language differences themselves. It's as if a group of homosexual people in Quebec wore pink shirts and the majority reacted against that group, not because they wore the shirts, but because they represented a different lifestlye. The majority here isn't reacting against the shirts, but against the people, yet without the shirts, there wouldn't be any identifier to stimulate conflict. The same applies to language: language is not the goal of the Francophile movement, just the tool they use to advance their claims. Yet, without language, it would be impossible to separate people into cultural groups, thus impossible to wage this conflict.

article: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071109/Quebec_language_071109/20071109?hub=Canada

Rushin' in the Russian

Sorry about the bad pun.
My article for this post is on Russia's official pressure on Latvia to make Russian an official language in the Baltic territory. "We believe that we are justified in pushing to have the status of the Russian language in Latvia raised to the level of a state language," said Alexander Chepurin, the head of the ministry's department on relations with the Russian diaspora. The diplomat said Latvia, where native Russian speakers account for at least 30% of the population, is the only ex-Soviet state to treat Russian as a foreign language.
Of what importance is it to Russia that a former Soviet territory doesn't acknowledge Russian as a state language? The two possibilities are that this conflict is either an attempt by the Russian government to protect Russians in foreign nations or an attempt to maintain Russian prevalence in an dominance of Eastern European territory after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Language can be a strongly unifying or strongly isolating and divisive force. By forcing Latvia to accept Russian as a state language, it is unclear whether the motive is to create unity between the majority of Latvians and the 30% minority, or to create a unifying feeling of Latvians to Russia.
Russia has a case to make for defending the Russian minority against an oppressive majority population. According to the article, "Moscow has repeatedly accused ex-Soviet Baltic states Latvia and Estonia of discrimination against their Russian-speaking minorities [...] Many people from the large ethnic Russian population in Latvia and Estonia have been assigned "non-citizen" status, which denies them a national passport and other rights, and prevents them from voting. The CIA World Factbook also states that "Russia demands better Latvian treatment of ethnic Russians in Latvia" in the section about Latvia's transnational issues. Though ethnic Russians are the second largest ethnic group (after Latvians at 57.7% of the population), they still constitute a minority (albeit one significantly larger than any other ethnic minority). Different languages strongly divide these ethnic groups, as 58.2% of the population speak Latvian, whereas 37.5% speak russian, yet Latvian is the only language listed as an official one. By making Russian an official language, the Latvian government would be acknowledging the existence of a significant ethnic population and 'legitimizing' their status as citizens through doing so. Also, "as a member state that forms part of the EU's external border, Latvia must implement the strict Schengen border rules with Russia," meaning that Latvia must restrict immigration from Russia without passports, which it doesn't do with EU Schengen nations, thus making it appear that Russians are a foreign ethnic group rather than a domestic one.
However, there are also perceived dangers to Latvian sovereignty and independence that come from authorizing Russian as an official language. By accepting such a large ethnic minority as an official group of nationals, Latvia would be strengthening Russian influence in society, and thus making it easier for Russia to make a case for having an increased influence over Latvian foreign and internal affairs. "Russia refuses to sign the 1997 boundary treaty due to Latvian insistence on a unilateral clarificatory declaration referencing Soviet occupation of Latvia and territorial losses," according to the CIA World Factbook, which legitimizes Latvian fears that this move is an attempt to maintain a strong Russian presence in Latvian affairs. "The Baltic nations, now EU and NATO members, deem the Soviet Union's annexation of their territories to have been an illegal occupation," according to the article.
Thus, through defining an official language, Latvia is pursuing a political tactic to prevent recurring foreign domination within her borders, whereas Russia is attempting to legitimize a language as official in order to prevent discrimination against an ethnic minority. Language is obviously both a very strong unifying and divisive force.

The Language of Politics

The article I read for this post talked about George Orwell's idea that better writing can create a better society, one of the aspects of which would be clearer, more honest political speech. The writer, Nicholas Lemann, ( http://newshopper.sulekha.com/news/2007/11/l-a-times-op-ed-the-limits-of-language.htm ), states that "The primary villain in 'Politics and the English Language' [Orwell's essay] is the kind of fancy, pretentious, imprecise prose usually purveyed by intellectuals [...] Orwell issues a blanket condemnation of all use of abstractions in political discussion -- such words as 'democracy,' 'justice,' 'science,' 'class' and 'equality.'" Lemann then applies Orwell's ideas to recent topics, suchs as the War in Iraq: "The words used to denote something the government does should have to do with the activity itself, not the values it is meant to embody or the feelings it is meant to activate. The war in Iraq, yes; Operation Enduring Freedom, no."
This is a very valid point. By changing the language and labels of events or organizations, politicians can create an inherent bias that sways people in favor or against a certain view. This concept works hand-in-hand with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which states that the language a person speaks is directly related to how that person thinks and understands the world, and thus how he behaves in the world. The hypothesis itself is stated by Edward Sapir as follows: "Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society [...] The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. [...] We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation." (from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/whorf.html ). This 'prisonbox' concept of language is very unpopular, and has received a lot of criticism from academics. However, there are empirical examples that support the idea that different languages influence people to think differently, such as the ones we have discussed in class. By grouping different pots and pans together in different ways, for instance, Russians and Americans understand these categorizations and the uses of said pots and pans differently. The same applies to the stereotype of inuits having many words for snow: their ability to differentiate types of snow determines their reality. For instance, an English speaker caught ina blizzard may always go through the same thought process of how to adapt (eg: this is a blizzard -> find direction -> find shelter -> stay warm -> don't break a sweat). However, inuits may have completely different thought processes based on the type of snow they are encountering (eg: this is snow type 13 -> head south -> dig a hole in the north face of a hill -> stay there until snow 13 is over or subsides to snow 12).
An example of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can even be found in literature, and most notably in Orwell's literature ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis ), "George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is a striking example of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity in fiction, in which a language known as Newspeak has trimmed and supplanted Modern English. In this case, Orwell says that if humans cannot form the words to express the ideas underlying a revolution, then they cannot revolt. All of the theory of Newspeak is aimed at eliminating such words. For example, bad has been replaced by ungood, and the concept of freedom has been eliminated over time. According to Nineteen Eighty-Four's appendix on Newspeak, the result of the adoption of the language would be that "a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words."
There are more examples of this in modern-day politics. Pro-abortion people call themselves “pro-choice” and anti-abortion “pro-life”. This plays into our values: as living beings, we value life, and with free wills, we value choice. But you won’t find people labeling themselves ‘anti-life’ or ‘anti-choice.’ Thus, going back to the idea of the article, there is a visible trend in politics (and there has been since democratic choice was introduced into politics) to label things according to values. In Orwell's "1984," there was a Ministry of Truth committed to disinformation and a Ministry of Peace dedicated to waging war. Scarily enough, we can observe that in the US too, where we have a Department of Justice (even though there are decisions which are overturned as 'unjust') and a Department of Homeland Security (which extends to pre-emptive strikes on other nations rather than being confined to national defense).
Lemman concludes that "an even more frightening political prospect than the corruption of language is the corruption of information [...] Intellectual honesty about the gathering and use of facts and data is a riskier and more precious part of a free society than is intellectual honesty in language. We ought to guard it with the same zeal that animates Orwell's work on political speech." Though this is a valid concern, information itself can be changed by the speech used to present it. For instance, there is a definite difference between labeling killed soldiers in Iraq as 'casualties,' 'wounded,' 'dead,' 'murdered,' or 'fallen.' The labeling changes the information, even if it can imply the same thing. Thus, I believe that it is necessary we pay close attention to language in order to prevent it from affecting both our perception and information.

The Right Language

The article that I found interesting in this new round of Google Alerts didn't really have to do much with language itself. The article pertained to a Malaysian poet who was considering releasing his drawings in a book with his poetry. As the article said, "For him, it’s a matter of finding the right “language” with which to express himself. 'Drawing and writing are just ways of externalising thoughts and ideas,' he says." Though this initially seemed like it wasn't very fruitful for writing a blog post, it got me thinking about what exactly constitutes language for us.
Obviously, the poet espouses the idea that visual imagery as well as writing can equally express our thoughts. According to Wikipedia (always a reliable source), a language is "a system, used to communicate, comprised of a set of symbols and a set of rules (or grammar) by which the manipulation of these symbols is governed." This points to the idea of a standard language construct, which creates a regulated system for communication. Another definition that points to such a concept of language is IBM's definition: "A set of characters, phonemes, conventions, and rules used for conveying information."
Other definitions point to language exclusively as something affiliated with speech, writing, or hand-sign communication, such as the University of Oulu: "Any means of conveying or communicating ideas; specifically, human speech; the expression of ideas by the voice; sounds, expressive of thought, articulated by the organs of the throat and mouth" or the English Learning for Preschoolers Project: "The human use of spoken or written words as a communication system. Language can also include a system of communication based on signs, gestures, or inarticulate sounds."
My question is whether it is possible to define language in a way that allows for a more amorphous conception of what language really is. Does the drawing of pictures really constitute language, or are drawings never as fully expressive as writing? Also, does language need a structure or system for it to be a language? I wish to look at two aspects of language here: the structure of language and the expressiveness of language.
I think that it is possible to create a hierarchy of language according to structure. The most structured languages would probably be those designed for computers and programming: these are designed with a specific set of rules for a specific set of functions and cannot contain any ambiguities (such as synonyms or homonyms). An example would be binary or HTML. Though these languages are very structured, I do not think they are as expressive as spoken language, because these languages only relate to the specific programming functions for which they are designed; they are contained within their essence: computers. After that on the hierarchy, I would put spoken and signed languages. These themselves do not constitute a point on the hierarchy, but a broad spectrum. There are more and less systematically structured languages (eg: Esperanto vs. Hopi, respectively), which may be simpler in their verb structure, grammar, noun-adjective differentiation.... These languages are lower than programming ones on the hierarchy because they contain ambiguities and they do not follow a strict structure. For instance, one word can mean multiple things in a language, and words don't always have to follow strict patterns (eg: irregular verb endings). I think it is easy to conclude that these languages are obviously more expressive than programming languages, as they attempt to allow a means of communicating all of human experience. Lastly on the hierarchy, I would put abstract languages, such as artistic ones (like drawing, music, or dance), which may contain the expression of ideas without actually using a language structure. These are obviously the most unstructured language, but in order to communicate, they still refer to symbols (if not a set of symbols) in order to convey their ideas. Obviously, there is also a spectrum here between realism and abstract art (a picture of a tree is a more effective communication of the idea of a tree than a canvas of smeared paint blotches). These languages would fit the definition given by the University of the State of New York: "A symbolic form of communication-perhaps the most important feature of a culture." I think it is possible to embrace a more amorphous conception of language. I also believe that these 'language' types are the most expressive of any language type. While traditional spoken languages confine people to a set or system of thought expression, artistic language does not contain rules to bind how ideas can be expressed. Thus, any idea is transferable in an artistic form even if there isn't an established way to phrase that idea. The only problem is that communication of that idea may not come across to the audience.
But I think that it is possible to conclude that, as this hierarchy shows, there is an inverse relationship between the structure of a language and the expressiveness of a language.

Double Post!

Ok, so I found an article that really kicked off some interesting ideas for me, but then I looked at my last post and found that people have been asking really interesting questions. And I can't just let interesting questions go unanswered, so I'm going to follow that guy's (sorry, I'm horrible with names!) idea and answer some questions for this post:

One interesting comment: "The study of foreign languages doesn't seem to be emphasized as much in the United States where English is so dominant." - I believe this is true. English is so important as the language of business and travel that everywhere I've gone, most of the people I've met have known at least some English. But history shows that dominant languages only have a lifespan of so long before they are corrupted or overtaken. I've got this cool little book about language history of the world, which says that the empire of Sumeria had basically the same language for 1000 years. So Americans may be setting themselves up for isolation if the language tastes of the world shift to, say, Arabic or Chinese, and English-only speakers are left out cold.

"Do you think that implementing more programs for children and young adults to learn other languages in places like Ohio will really contribute to make the state more successful and globally competitive? I understand the need for officials and government workers to be able to communicate in other languages, but how can the focus on preschoolers and other non-adults help this success?" - In an era of globalization, I really do believe that an emphasis on language from pre-school will have a serious impact on future success. Growing up in an international community, I learned certain things (phrases or facts) from and about people of different cultures, which helped me out in the future. For instance, I learned about Pakistan from people I had met who were from Islamabad. Then, one night, when I caught a late cab ride, the driver happened to be Pakistani, so I asked if he too was from the capital. This sparked off a long conversation about Islamabad, which I was able to participate in by virtue of having met people from there before. And, at the end of the night, he refused my tip just because we had been able to connect over that. I think language is an even stronger force to bring people together even in small situations like that. Obviously, being able to speak the same language is very important on the global level of transnational business deals, but it's even helpful on the small-scale level of going to a corner store and being able to communicate effectively. The barbers in my neighborhood were all hispanic, and I think that by saying what I wanted in Spanish, I probably saved myself the trouble of buying a new hat on some occasions. And these kind of interactions are what create customer loyalty and successful transactions. So that's why I think language education from an early age will make the state more successful, even on a microeconomic level.

"I wonder why Ohio, Oregon, and Texas were targeted for this initiative. What qualities about those states provide for a greater rate of success of this program? Is it that the infrastructures of the educational systems in these states are somehow more flexible and able to accommodate the financial and cultural requirements of instituting new language programs?" - That's a good question, and I don't think I can Google my way out of that one. I don't know why these three states were selected, because their ethnic/cultural/language makeups are radically different. For instance, in Oregon, the largest foreign group is Hispanics (275,314 in 2000), followed by Asians (101,350), Pacific Islanders (7,976), and French Canadians. The same census stated that 8.5% of the population was of foreign birth. Also, the census noted a large number of Native Americans (45,211), who also have their own respective languages (all this from http://www.city-data.com/states/Oregon-Ethnic-groups.html ). Compared with the statistics on Ohio from the last post, it's apparent that these two states have very different language makeups. So I'm not sure why these states specifically would be targeted. My guess is that there are two characteristics that made them more likely to have these new programs: 1) they don't have foreign populations big enough or pervasive enough to have spawned such programs already (even though I know Texas is basically hispanic in many places), and 2) they don't have foreign populations small enough to make these programs unnecessary.

"I am curious about your claim that "This clearly points to the idea that people think differently in different languages, if it is necessary to understand a foreign language simply to provide for security." Does the language and thought relation really fall out of this situation?" - I felt like that was a weak claim when I wrote it, but I included it because I have a visceral feeling that the language and thought relation is included in the idea that multilingualism benefits national security. My internal reasoning (this is the best I can explain it) is this: the foremost addressed need of any society is security. If learning foreign languages at the preschool level benefits national security, then the converse must also be true: not learning foreign languages is detrimental to national security. Because security is the foremost concern of societies, it is likely that people will consider security their highest priority. If language alone is a threat to this priority, there must be something beyond just language itself that poses this threat - it points to the idea that there are different patterns of thought underlying these languages which pose a threat to communication and thus to security.

"Also, some people argue that globalization is just an extension of imperialism. Do you think that the plan instituted in Ohio contradicts or reflects the theory of language imperialism?" - I don't agree with the comparison of globalization to imerialism. The reason for this is that globalization goes both ways; while imperialism consists in one society's domination of another, whereby the dominated society usually has no influence on the dominating one (India being a notable exception to the rule), globalization affects both societies. It's like me sticking my foot in water: when Nikola sticks his foot in water, Nikola gets wet, but the water also gets Nikola (sorry for the third person). I think the same applies here. The fact that English is the dominant language in the business world, but that emphasis is now being put on English speakers to learn foreign languages, clearly shows that other cultures and languages are having an effect on us just like we are on them.

Teaching Language To Preschoolers

The federal government has decided that to begin programs in teaching foreign languages to preschool students in Ohio. According to Ohio.com, "Teaching Arabic, Chinese and Spanish to children as young as preschoolers is part of a blueprint created by business, education and government leaders to boost the state's economy [...] The plan, called the "Ohio Language Roadmap for the 21st Century," lists things the state can do to better compete globally, more warmly welcome foreigners with limited English skills and strengthen state and national security."
Among the features of the plan are expanding instruction in foreign languages, hiring more foreign language teachers, creating a shopping center for foreign language materials, developing a social-networking group related to language, and offering grants and fellowships to boost knowledge of foreign languages.
Ohio, according to Wikipedia, is not among the states that have accepted English as their official language (California is, even though it has agreed to publish documents in foreign languages for minority groups). Some states, such as Louisiana and Maine, have adopted a bi or tri-lingual status that Ohio also has not adopted. Though English accounts for 93.9% of the languages spoken in Ohio (as seen here: http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/langus.htm#Languages_Spoken_in_Ohio_ ), there are also numerous other languages spoken in the state, including primarily Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish. Thus, it is reasonable for the state to wish for a more multicultural approach to accepting speakers of foreign languages. As Robert Slater, director of the National Security Education Program in Washington, remarked, "The program will also likely strengthen state and national security by improving U.S. relations with other countries and helping new immigrants."
This stress on foreign languages clearly demonstrates the extent of globalization in our modern world. Multiculturalism has become a central tenet of many states and education programs in the US, due to high influx of immigrants and multiple generations of foreigners. However, what is the impetus for this stress on learning foreign languages? The only available conclusion is that it makes communication easier, to the extent where it apparently aids national security. This clearly points to the idea that people think differently in different languages, if it is necessary to understand a foreign language simply to provide for security. Miscommunication between an American and an Spanish person in even a simple setting could spark an unpleasant situation due to cultural differences inherent in their respective languages. Imagine a reference of an American to embarassment, which could be mistranslated to the Spanish person as 'pregnant' (which is 'embarasado' in Spanish). Obviously, the necessity of having a matching language is crucial to the understanding of foreign nationals in Ohio. In a world becoming more and more pluralistic, I wouldn't be surprised to see these programs forming all over the nation.

http://www.ohio.com/news/ap?articleID=164111&c=y

PS: As a funny sidenote, the article states that "Federal officials have put $333,333 behind the pilot program." That just seems like an odd number.

Cussing At Work

According to a British study, recent finding show that "Cussing at work can boost morale and esprit de corps." According to the article, "findings suggest that managers should take note of the team-building benefits that accompany foul language. "For some people, the use of profanity is a way to create collegiality. For others, it's a way to relieve stress."
This is an interesting finding because it gives an alternative perspective on the common notion that cussing has an implicitly negative effect in society. The idea that words have no implicit power in themselves is a falsehood. Our society 'codifies' words into a system whereby they do hold an intrinsic power by themselves. A good example is marriage: it takes nothing but the word of a preacher to legally bind two people. Thus, it is impossible to claim that words have no power over people in society. Expletives and insults work the same way: people can physically feel the effect of cuss words, which leads to repulsion a lot of the time in formal settings. When Vice President Dick Cheney cursed on the Senate floor, the event caused articles to be written. People attribute a huge importance to 'foul language.' Thus, even if the words that qualify as foul language may in themselves be arbitrary (there is nothing inherently offensive about any one word's sound), the power they have over people is very real.
This article confirms the idea of language's power over people. Only this time, the effect is reversed. The same arbitrary sounds that are designated as cuss words have a relieving effect on people who use them to annunciate stress or frustration. The research found that "younger, lower-level workers were more likely to use offensive language." This is probably because these workers have two conditions that predispose them to cussing: 1) they are young, thus are probably more connected with popular culture, which emphasizes the use of informal language and cussing, 2) they are low-level workers, which means they work in an informal setting and have more stressful, laborious jobs in general than higher-level workers (due to more physical labor or longer hours). It is understandable that these kinds of workers would need to alleviate stress through an outlet, and that this outlet would therefore be cussing.
As Yehuda Baruch, a professor of management at the University of East Anglia, said, "If anybody is offended, it should be banned. But if everybody is happy with it, and we want our people to be happy, then we should be able to live with it." Baruch's idea of cussing is one opposed to the traditional societal idea of cussing. Instead of looking at curse words in a deontological manner, he evaluates them teleologically. That is to say, he doesn't believe in the common notion that cussing is inherently wrong or offensive, but instead evaluates the utility from cussing. His conclusion: if cussing can have a possible good impact on people, its utility is positive, and it should therefore be allowed.

Umm...

The article I read this week is about the difficulty of spoken language. The article centers around a book by journalist Michael Erard, which talks about speech disfluencies. As the article notes, Errard "says slip-ups happen because we're thinking way ahead of what comes out of our mouths. We make what another linguist, Rudolf Meringer, once called "forward errors." We want to say, "Grab that glass." But it comes out, "Glab that glass." That's because the brain is anticipating the "gllll" sound in the word "glass."
This is what usually leads to people stuttering or inserting 'uh' and 'umm' into their sentences. The brain is processing the sentences we want to say, but we complete the thought before we begin the sentence. A common stall employed in the US today is 'like.' I, personally, am so accustomed to using the word 'like' as a stall in sentences that I use 'como' to stall when I speak Spanish.
According to Wikipedia, "Speech disfluencies are any of various breaks, irregularities, or utterances that are often not consistent with any specific grammatical construction and occur within the flow of otherwise fluent speech." And they occur in multiple languages. "Americans use pauses such as "um" or "uh," the British say "er" or "erm", the French use something like "euh," the German say "äh" (pronounced eh or er), Japanese use "ahh", "ano", or "eto", and Hebrew and Spanish speakers use something like "ehhh", "como", and "este" in Mexican Spanish. In Mandarin "neige" & "jiege" are used while "Serbian" and "Croatian" speakers vocalize an "ovay". Thus, my translation of like is a common occurrence in Mexican speech disfluency.
My theory on why this happens because there are three process to formulating speech, and gaps between each of the processes causes delays in translation. First, our thoughts have an inception in 'mentalese,' the language of thought that preceeds actual spoken or consciously phrased language. These thoughts are quickly pieced together and translated into a sentence or into sentence parts in our heads. Then, the challenge is constructing this thought into a full, grammatically correct sentence and vocalizing it. The gap between mentalese and thought isn't visible because we can't really detect our language of thought, but the gap between forming an idea mentally and voicing that idea is clearly visible. Our mentalese only presents us with the main concepts necessary to the thought, but voicing that thought requires grammatical links between each piece of information we wish to express. This is where the challenge is presented: because we are thinking ahead to the completion of a thought or to the next thought in the process, we have difficulty connecting thoughts in a grammatically proper way, which causes these speech disfluencies.

Language IS Society

Quebecois officials are planning a "language offensive" to define Quebec's national language as French. Adding an amendment to Canada's Official Languages Act would bring about the change, which would compel federal agencies in Quebec that operate in English to switch to French. Quebecois leader Giles Duceppe recently told students in a speech that "the federal government's recent recognition of Quebec as a nation is nothing more than words because it has not been translated into concrete actions." Thus, by switching the 'national' language of Quebec to French, it allows Quebec another barrier to differentiate itself from Canada, further defining it as an independent nation.
From an international perspective, this is a very interesting move by the Quebecois Party. It is true that official language differences provide barriers that separate nations from eachother, especially in Europe, where cultures and states are defined around their languages (for example: in the Balkans, Serbia vs. Hungary, or in the Benelux nations, Belgium vs. the Netherlands). However, a different language is not the defining attribute that separates two nation-states from eachother. Many nations (such as the US, the Philippines, or China) are either pluralistic or traditionally fragmented enough that different areas within them function in seperate languages. However, this doesn't create seperate nations or even federally-recognized states within the nations. The importance of language to the separation of Quebec from Canada is a clear indicator of the role language plays in Canadian culture.
Right now, Ottowa refuses to recognize Quebec's Charter of the French Language, which is a major obstacle in becoming what Duceppe calls a "francophone nation." However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made promises to Quebec about its separation. "It is just words," Duceppe said. "We want more than words. I challenge Stephen Harper today to say he is ready, Yes or No, to recognize the primacy of French in Quebec? Is he ready to go from statements to acts? I am waiting for an answer and in French please."
It's amazing that language alone can construct legal boundaries. Nations are, ultimately, founded on basically arbitrary qualities. It is rare that a nation is formed along serious geographic or racial boundaries. Borders are normally established for abstract, more arbitrary reasons, such as historical expansion, contraction, and division of societies along ideological lines. Language is one of the arbitrary qualities that allow nations to define themselves as seperate. However, ultimately, language is just that: arbitrary. It doesn't usually reflect any real distinction between people. Though many Quebec citizens are probably French-descended, unlike many other Canadians, the language difference is not an intrinsic quality. Thus, people can group together as a society around language alone and use that to define themselves as a nation-state. It is incredible that a choice in parlance is the foundation for culture, personal identity, and, ultimately, citizenship.

article at: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=0949e62e-e8f6-4f3c-87f3-668d745f3131&k=57600

Language Emergencies

I found an interesting article in this week's Google NewsAlerts, which was about EMS and paramedic crews who attempt to communicate with non-English speakers in emergency situations. The article ( http://www.wpde.com/news/viewarticle.asp?view=7062 ) noted that "rescuers take spanish classes, they have a spanish program on their computer and they carry around a mini-spanish guide," in order to communicate. However, emergency situations are still problematic for them. The article came in the wake of a man whose SUV flipped on the highway, almost killing him.
Is it necessary for immigrants to the United States to learn English? Another article in the NewsAlerts, a blog ( http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2007/10/learn-the-langu.html ), talked with annoyance about how frustrating it is to hear people speaking other languages to eachother in the United States. Thus, America is faced with either a stance of isolationist xenophobia or assmilition. Should Americans be forced to cope with the speaking of foreign languages? Many immigrants who don't speak English and who come from lower social classes form communities of people who speak the same langauge, thus eliminating the need for assimilation and English education.
The Wikipedia report on the 2000 census states that:
According to the 2000 census [4], the main languages by number of speakers older than 5 are:
English - 215 million
Spanish - 28 million
Chinese languages - 2.0 million + (mostly Cantonese speakers, with a growing group of Mandarin speakers)
French - 1.6 million
German - 1.4 million (High German) + German dialects like Hutterite German, Texas German, Pennsylvania Dutch, Plautdietsch
Tagalog - 1.2 million + (Most Filipinos may also know other Philippine languages, e.g. Ilokano, Pangasinan, Bikol languages, and Visayan languages)
Vietnamese - 1.01 million
Italian - 1.01 million
Korean - 890,000
Russian - 710,000
Polish - 670,000
Arabic - 610,000
Portuguese - 560,000
Japanese - 480,000
French Creole - 450,000 (mostly Louisiana Creole French - 334,500)
Greek - 370,000
Hindi - 320,000
Persian - 310,000
Urdu - 260,000
Gujarati - 240,000
Armenian - 200,000

Thus, speakers of other langauges constitute a large portion of American society. Though English is a clear majority of the langauges spoken domestically, American society is obviously multicultural. According to a 2005 US Census, high amounts of people over 5 years old speak English less than 'very well' in many states. In California, 20.2% of people over 5 speak English less than 'very well' ( http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-_box_head_nbr=R1603&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-format=US-30 ).
Should immigrants who speak different native languages have to learn English? Those who believe they should cite a few reasons. Firstly, assimilating into American culture by learning English facilitates the lives of immigrants and those who interact with them. It opens up a wider range of job possibilities for them, and allows those who interact with them, such as customers at a store of theirs, to communicate with them. Another argument for language assimilation is that English is an obligation of American citizenship. The logic is that, by reaping the rewards of living in the US and enjoying the privileges of the US, immigrants are obligated to adopt the 'American way of life,' which includes speaking English, in order to 'earn' this privilege.
Those who argue against language assimilation have beliefs about the detrimental effect of 'converting' to English. One argument is that, by adopting an American identity and speaking English, immigrants lose their cultural identity and become uprooted from their ancestry. Another argument is that forcing English assimilation is detrimental to a pluralistic society because it diminishes the cultural influences of different nationalities, thus diminishing the diversity of thought and richness of culture within the United States.
Regardless of the arguments, it is obvious from the article that a lack of a common language severely impedes communication in some situations where it is necessary. The article noted that the paramedics usually resort to hand signals and communication techniques they would use with children, such as pointing, but that this doesn't allow for effective communication to the extent needed. As globalization increases, this problem will amplify, and common methods of communication, especially in pluralistic societies, will need to be established.

The Building Blocks of Language Development

A recent study has posited the notion that childrens' use of building blocks at a young age may significantly contribute to the development of their language skills. According to US News ( http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071002/toy-blocks-might-boost-toddlers-language-skills.htm ), the study was conducted by splitting 175 children into two groups (one of 87 and one of 88) and having parents use building blocks to play with the kids in one group. The study showed that the children who played with the building blocks scored 15% higher in language tests than the children who did not play with blocks. The study was conducted by a toy block maker, which creates a small suspicion of biased testing, as it would be in the maker's interest to show a positive effect of using building blocks. However, the test group was large enough to yield significant results, and the toy block maker was not actually involved in the tests, thus the study appears to be objective.
According to US News, "Imaginative play can help in the development of memory, impulse control and language." This is conducive to the idea that a kind of meta-language, which Noam Chomsky referred to as 'mentalese' and which Jerry Alan Fodor referred to as the 'language of thought,' may exist. This language precedes spoken language in our thought processes. As Wikipedia states it, "This means that thoughts are represented in a "language" (sometimes known as mentalese) which allows complex thoughts to be built up by combining simpler thoughts in various ways."
My belief is that childrens' play with toys forces them to use their imaginations, as well as reasoning skills, to create what the want with the blocks. This creates a necessity for thought relating to how to best use the blocks to build, and the thought process relating to building the blocks is most likely in 'mentalese' (as the children in the study had not yet developed sufficient language skills to describe the building process to themselves). The use of thoughts in the cerebral meta-language thus makes their brains more active and more conducive to phrasing thought, which could aid them in aquiring language skills.
According to the Wikipedia article on language development, "Usually, language starts off as recall of simple words without associated meaning, but as children age, words acquire meaning, and connections between words are formed. In time, sentences start to form as words are joined together to create logical meaning. As a person gets older, new meanings and new associations are created and vocabulary increases as more words are learned." Maybe playing with blocks forces children to develop a language relating to the tasks they attempt to accomplish with the blocks, thus, associations between words and concepts are formed. Because the parents play with the children, it is possible that the children mimic parental phrases relating to the blocks, which allows them to develop a sophisticated vocabulary.
The article continues by saying, "It is crucial that children are allowed to socially interact with other people who can vocalize and respond to questions. For language acquisition to develop successfully, children must be in an environment that allows them to communicate socially in that language." This example of using building blocks with their parents would support the thesis that children develop better language skills with social interaction.

SAPanese to create dictionary

Systemanalyse und Programmentwicklung, known as SAP, is the world's largest business software company. Founded in Germany in 1972, by five IBM engineers. The acronym was later changed to mean Systeme, Anwendungen und Produkte in der Datenverarbeitung ("Systems, Applications and Products in Data Processing").
Now, employees, partners, and SAP users have created a language specific to SAP, with acronyms that apply only to the system. The words in the new language exist to facilitate description of certain processes unique to SAP (or to operating systems). An example of a word from the dictionary is abapit (a verb), which means "To make something better using ABAP." An example of the word in a sentence is: "This program simply isn't working properly; we should abapit instead!" Unfortunately, the glossary online (at http://www.socialtext.net/saphelpdesk/index.cgi?SAP%20Glossary ) appears to be empty. The dictionary will most likely eventually reach publication on the internet.
This points to a growing trend resulting from computer and internet usage: a language is developing related to functions and concepts specific to the computer world. Many examples of computer slang are readily available. One example is the usage of acronyms in online chats (now also in text messages), such as 'lol' (laugh out loud), 'brb' (be right back), or 'ttyl' (talk to you later). Another example is the common usage of verbs such as 'to google,' 'to blog,' and even 'to e-mail.' Though this online language is not available in most dictionaries or the spellcheck function of Microsoft Word, there is no doubt that this new language formed over the past 15 years is continuing a fast-paced growth. More esoteric examples of computer-related lingo are available on the informal Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lol (NSFW: not safe for work).
Language is always evolving as new contexts and concepts present themselves, but in an age where most educational, business, and even daily tasks involve computer usage, the largest stimulus in reshaping the English language appears to be computers. Words that 50 years ago wouldn't be accepted in a dictionary as proper English (such as abbreviations like 'won't') are now common parlance. Most likely, within the next decade, computer-related language now seeming esoteric will be in such frequent usage that regular dictionaries will be forced to accomodate the terms. E-mail is already such a familiar concept that the term 'to e-mail' has passed out of the realm of 'colloquial computer language' to a more globally accepted status as a part of language.
Undoubtedly, that SAP is creating a dictionary with words relating specifically to the software system is another step in this process of the redefinition of English along computerized lines. The necessity (or even just the possibility) of a dictionary specifically regarding an operating system posits the notion that computers' additions to the English language will continue to grow exponentially.
There isn't necessarily a negative effect of this reshaping of language. English is always evolving and, in doing so, losing much of its formality. The use of 'can't' and the extinction of 'thou' are good examples of the informal evolution of the language. But will this trend continue to include acronyms and abbreviations used online? Will "brb" replace "be right back" as the acceptable term, so that "be right back" becomes an extinct colloquialism? Will "lol" find its way into a dictionary, and then into everyday conversation? Obviously, there is a threat to English in that this will cause us to lose words and concepts in the language, which will become extinct due to lack of necessity. However, that form of reshaping is, as I have shown, nothing new to the English language. It remains to be seen to what extent, if any, computers will redefine our language.

article: http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/6295
information on SAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAP_AG

Baby Talk: Interpreting Baby Sign Language

The article I read was on using sign language with infants who have not yet developed verbal skills. The article is by Stacy Downs, for the Democrat Herald, and can be seen here: http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2007/09/29/lifestyles/healthy_living/fit01.txt . I found this article really interesting, because it's showing that babies are learning a form of communication at a much earlier stage than is traditional. This means, firstly, that they are linking concepts to expressions at an early stage, which could probably mean that they are developing an understanding of objects around them at an earlier age.
There are a lot of other potential benefits from being able to communicate through sign language. Because babies have a form of expression of their wants that is interpretable to adults, that means that their wants are more easily satisfied. In a Pavlovian sense, the sign language allows them to develop a more complex stimulus-response mechanism than crying, which may allow them to develop an understanding of communicating as a two-way, multifaceted process. Because communication is facilitated, babies may grow up to be more content, as they have a means of acquiring what they want. This contentness could possibly make children more well-adjusted, as well as more easily able to communicate their needs when they are older.
Another possible effect of using sign language at an early stage is that children may develop biases, attitudes, or preconceptions towards the nouns they can voice. This may attach the idea of the sign in their minds with the idea of the noun, a connection that could last into adulthood. It also may disconnect the idea of the word itself somewhat from the noun.
Because baby sign language only relates to nouns, learning it also means that their language is developed free of relations between nouns and ideas. For instance, the idea of milk can be closely connected to that of cows, of farming, of breakfast, or of adjectives such as rancid or milky, which in turn can be connected mentally to other nouns. Without such a complex language, babies develop a concept of nouns independent from their associations with other words and ideas. Baby talk is obviously a more neutral language in this respect.
Finally, the article and wikipedia entry point out a problem with baby sign language. A concern is that teaching babies sign language will slow their learning of actual language. It has been shown that infants who learn to languages are slower to utilize verbal abilities. Thus, infants might resort to more familiar sign language terms instead of using actual language. However, as baby sign language is a relatively new concept, it is too early to concretely determine the effects that it has on infants.

Here's the wikipedia article on Baby Signing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_sign
And here's the official website: http://www.signingbaby.com/main/

where I've been

create your own visited country map
or check our Venice travel guide

some more background

I also presented an oral in a class (Theory of Knowledge) at my high school that was on a topic similar to this one. Here's my speaking notes from the oral:

Ways of knowing: perception, language
Areas of knowledge: ethics, language, philosophy, psychology, sociology

Exercise: close your eyes, open them, and focus on a random object. The word for that object should appear as soon as you focus on it, the object is instantly defined and categorized. For example: a chair is a chair; it could be used as a table, a shield, or a plate, but we recognize it instantly as a chair and associate it with sitting down.

-in linguistics, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (SWH) states that there is a relationship between the language a person speaks and how that person both understands the world and behaves in it
- language is the means for expressing ideas and understanding the world. It’s the medium through which we communicate and interrelate. Author George Lakoff said that all language is a metaphor: to some extent, this is true; language is a clunky way of grouping things together and of labeling things. For instance, if I say the word ‘house,’ we all picture a different house, this is because language is general, not specific. Also, the word ‘house’ has nothing to do with a house itself, it’s a signifier that stands for what a house is.
- My theory is that language shapes reality. ◊

Problems of knowledge:
Limitations of knowledge: perception this all depends on how I perceive my own thought process. Normally, I think in words and my thoughts are only understandable when I can phrase them. But sometimes, I can have feelings that I can’t explain in words: does this reflect my lack of vocabulary, or an inability of language to encompass thought?
verification I can’t verify that language shapes how I think or that language is necessary for thought. Without an alternative to language, I have no way of knowing that my thought process would be any different. I also have no way of knowing if I can picture concepts without words to describe them, because what I do think of is in words I can describe.
Bias: my analysis of the link between thought and language is based on my own personal perspective. But everybody uses and understands language differently: people think in different languages and have different styles of thought. For some people, thought may precede definition and explanation.
Uncertainty: (of verification) Nietzsche, a postmodernist philosopher, developed a concept of the genealogy of thought, whereby we should seek to understand how we interpret the world by tracing the evolution of thought. Postmodernism claims that people don’t define language, but language defines people. However, when we examine language, the biggest problem is the uncertainty of verification that we can’t critically examine a system using the tools of that system. We have to be able to step outside of language in order to evaluate it holistically, but this is impossible, we can only evaluate it from within itself.
Communication: Another problem is how do I communicate this evaluation to other people and to myself without using language?

Analysis:
How does language shape reality?: we can run a few empirical litmus tests.
-for instance: if I say the word ‘nigger,’ you probably feel an instant repulsion. This word is associated with racism, hatred, ignorance, intolerance, oppression… Our visceral response to this word marks to power of language over us.
-Another example is how we label things: pro-abortion people call themselves “pro-choice” and anti-abortion “pro-life”. This plays into our values: as living beings, we value life, and with free wills, we value choice. But you won’t find people labeling themselves ‘anti-life’ or ‘anti-choice’. Just like with the N-word, language plays off of our values and personalities to determine how we view the world.
-another experiment is contemplating how we think in different languages. Based on my personal knowledge, there are three examples that come to mind:
in Spanish and French, there are gender specific pronouns: ‘el sol’ is masculine, ‘la luna’ is feminine. This may determine the characteristics those language speakers attribute to genders and therefore may determine how genders relate. It can be used to reinforce gender power structures.
Possessive signifiers: in Spanish, we usually say “I’m going to the school”. In English, we say “I’m going to my school.” In English, possessive signifiers are much more common, making English a more possessive language. This could make people feel and act more personally possessive. It draws distinctions based on ownership and membership. It is good for fostering capitalist systems. Languages like Spanish, alternately, may be more conducive to anarchism. (Spain is the only example of a country with successful 20th century anarchism).
Slavic languages like Serbian don’t have articles like ‘a’ or ‘the’. Instead of ‘this is the house’, people say ‘this is house’. This lack of definite and indefinite articles creates a lack of differentiation between things. It may influence people to think in more general terms and not to value specific things over general ones, which is an attitude very conducive to communism.
-an empirical example: of how language shapes reality is of explorer Daniel Everret, who examined the Piraha language of an Amazonian tribe. There were only three number words: one, two, and many. He found that adults were unable to learn even simple mathematics or to easily recount numbers higher than 3.
-fictional examples: George Orwell’s 1984 deals with a totalitarian society with a new language called Newspeak. Newspeak is aimed at discouraging revolution; the underlying idea is that, if people can’t form the words to express the ideas underlying revolution, then they cannot revolt. ‘Bad’ is replaced with ‘ungood’ and ‘freedom’ as a concept is linguistically eliminated. Ayn Rand’s Anthem deals with a similar society where the word ‘I’ is eliminated. People have to refer to themselves as ‘we’. People are thus forced to consider themselves as part of a mass and thus to think selflessly and collectively, which eliminates individuality and unites people.
Divergent points of view: linguists like Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker believe along the lines of the idea that thought is independent of language, and that language is itself meaningless in any fundamental way to human thought, and that humans do not even think in what is called “natural” language, (any of the languages that we actually speak or write), but rather, we think in a meta-language that precedes any spoken language; this language of thought is called “mentalese”.
Experiment 1: Scientists conducting experiments found that, when people tried to commit difficult phrases to memory, they could often remember the ‘gist’ of the phrase but wouldn’t be able to recall the phrase exactly. This suggests that thoughts can be stored without depending on language.
Experiment 2: Scientists also found that people could perform functions in processing spatial information and visual information without language. For instance, when images were rotated and people had to match them up with the non-rotated image, they would identify the matching images without linguistically labeling them. Also, scientists have asserted that some animals are capable of developed thought even without language to give it a context.

Claims/Counterclaims: we come to a stalemate between these two schools of thought because there are problems of knowledge that prevent us from being able to make universal conclusions. For instance: (bias) what if our methods of thought are all different from each other? (perception) What if thought originates on a subconscious level before we become conscious of our thoughts (like when we recall things we had forgotten)? (verification) We have a chicken-and-egg problem of being able to identify what comes first: thought or phrasing of thought: we can’t phrase a thought if it doesn’t exist, but maybe we can’t have a thought if there is no way to phrase it. (uncertainty) We’re trapped inside language, so the only tools we have are linguistic ones, meaning we can never evaluate language from an external perspective (it’s being trapped in a box and trying to find out what color the outside of the box is).

This problem is most relevant to the study of linguistics, but is prevalent in all areas of knowledge because of the ramifications of language in all fields.

My personal opinion: I face the same problems and limitations of knowledge faced by those who make the claims and counter-claims relating to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, but my opinion is that language does shape reality for us. Unfortunately, I am biased by my own thought process, I’m uncertain due to my inability to objectively examine language, and I’m unable to verify how my thought process works in order to determine the connection between language and thought. It’s impossible for us to be able to conceive of many abstract concepts like freedom or spirituality without having language to define them, so I feel that language is necessary once we reach certain levels of thought. I also think that the connection grows: as we learn and use language more and more, our thought becomes more dependent on language because we have more tools to outline our thoughts and we therefore use them more, strengthening the connection. Therefore, I believe that language does shape reality.

Why I'm in this class...

I'm really interested in different languages, because I'm from Washington DC, which is a city with a huge international background. I went to an international (IB) school, where all of my friends were from very eclectic backgrounds, and my neighborhood was a mix of whites, Ethiopians (black), and Salvadoreans (hispanic). So I've always been exposed to different langauges and cultures. As well as this, my parents both work for the World Bank, and so we all travel a lot. My father is from Serbia, and we often visit there, as well as many other countries (the Bank sponsors some of our vacation time as 'home leave'). My mother is from San Francisco, but spent time living in Barcelona and the Philippines as well.

I speak Spanish fluently (we were required to take a language in school) and I speak decent Serbian. As such, I've always been interested in the discontinuities between different languages.