Barack Obama's Campaign Language

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama said, “There are moments in American history where there are opportunities to change the language of politics...and I think we’re in one of those moments” (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, p. 97). Obama fully took advantage of this moment and used language to propel himself from the position of an unknown senator at the Democratic National Convention to the President of the United States. His speech at the Democratic National Convention was filled with language of hope, unity, and passion. His popularity skyrocketed after this speech, and he soon won the primaries and entered the general election stage. At this point, Obama recognized the need to communicate to the citizens with more direct, plain language to ease the tension from the economic crisis, among other national crises. Before long, Obama’s language was associated with great speakers like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln. He often referenced well-known speakers and popular presidents to draw a connection between himself and them. Now that the campaign is over, Obama’s language can be analyzed and dissected to discover exactly how he reached the highest office in the United States and how he gave the country hope during some of the biggest struggles of the century.

Obama’s Connection to his Audience

Obama’s language electrified audiences unlike any politician had done in years, but what made his language so stimulating and inspiring? TIME magazine (2009) noticed that Obama fed off the crowd’s excitement and applause to enliven his speeches (p. 65). He used the audience’s emotions to give a more enthusiastic performance. Also, Grady (2008) recognized Obama’s use of various language styles: “Sometimes the words were glorious and lyrical as a jazz solo in a 2 a.m. nightclub. Sometimes they were practical and mundane as a carpentry manual. They were delivered in a confident, edgy cadence that reminded some of us of Jack Kennedy or Martin Luther King Jr.” He created a different language depending on the audience he was speaking to and the impression he was trying to convey. Despite the differences in language, however, he consistently spoke in a conversational style with a distinct confidence. He was comfortable with improvisation, and he did not always rely on a teleprompter like other candidates. Speaking directly to the audience allowed him to have an open, comfortable conversation with his audience, and he drew them in as if he was speaking to each person one-on-one.

Dixit and Kristal (2007) wrote of a study that Psychology Today did with experts on the 2008 candidates, working to discover the candidates’ unspoken traits and messages. A body language expert noted that Obama’s gestures made him seem open and loose in front of an audience. His charisma showed especially when he spoke with individual people, for he gave each person his entire focus, direct eye contact, and he leaned in to fully engage with them (p. 75). Beyond his verbal language, Obama used inviting body language to connect with people.

Obama’s language also incorporated certain rhetorical devices, which gave his language a certain beauty that attracted listeners. Grady (2008) described Obama as a “president who can use language precisely as a concert violinist playing a Back sonata.” He used metaphors and imagery that invited the audience to attentively listen to his words. Grady (2008) noticed that his speeches always had “rhythm, repetition, alliteration, [and,] balance.” The composition of his sentences created appealing language that drew the audience to his speeches. Obama’s various language styles, rhetorical devices, and welcoming body language contributed to the connection he formed with his audiences.

The Personal Side of his Language

Obama often told his own story in his speeches, allowing people to get to know him as a real person and understand where he came from. He then made his story into America’s story (Grady, 2008). For example, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, he told his personal story of growing up without a father and with a white mother. Neer (2008) remembered how Obama began his speech: “Let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely . . . In no other country on Earth is my story even possible” (p. 40). In this way he was able to describe his life story during his campaign, but he did not just tell personal narratives in order to win the sympathy vote. Instead, he used his own story to connect with America’s story, explaining the great struggles and triumphs in his life and also showing his deep patriotism for this country. TIME (2009) wrote, “[Obama] presented himself as an orphan and a child of America” (p. 65). People could relate to his story, and they began to view him as a normal citizen, not an elite or pompous politician. Obama became an ordinary person who had risen up through his hardships and, through this process, formed a strong relationship with his country. He continued this meshing of his story with the country’s story to the very end of his campaign. The night he was elected president, Obama gave a speech in Chicago and revoked the memory of his speech at the Democratic National Convention: “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible . . . tonight is your answer” (Grady, 2008). In this sentence he reminded people of his personal story as an African-American coming from an unlikely presidential background. He simultaneously showed how America was the reason he could be as successful as he was. Obama’s choice of language when talking about his past showed people a deeply personal side of the candidate and demonstrated his strong devotion to the country.

Hopeful Language or Empty Rhetoric?

Obama’s language throughout his campaign has been noted for its expression of hope and inspiration. During the campaign, Americans were worried about their own futures, the future of their families, and the future of their country. People did not know if they would be laid-off from their jobs, if they would be able to afford to send their children to college, or if they would be able to pay their mortgages. There was great uncertainty, especially in the economic future. Obama was able to transform people’s uncertainty and concerns into hope. Kennedy-Shaffer (2009) cited the work of George Lakoff, a linguist, who explained that Obama used a technique called framing to change the citizens’ views of politicians, the government, and the country as a whole. Lakoff pointed out that Obama relied on a new type of language to produce new frames that would appeal to people’s emotions and project positivism (pp. 93-6). People moved away from their fear of the future and found a renewed hope for the months ahead. During a time of war and economic recession, Obama gave his listeners faith that the government would help the citizens. At the Democratic National Convention, he said, “Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the fact of uncertainty, the audacity of hope: In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation, a belief in things not seen, a belief that there are better days ahead” (Neer, 2008, p. 42). His exhilarating performance energized the audience with its optimism and encouragement. TIME (2009) wrote that Obama was “testing the country’s capacity for audacity” with this speech, and he discovered that people were open to his message (p. 65). Beginning with this early speech, Obama evoked the message of hope in his campaign language.

However, Obama’s early, optimistic campaign language was often criticized for only serving to appeal to listeners and lacking substance. TIME (2009) criticized him for making grandiose promises to the citizens without backing up his ideas with concrete plans for the future (p. 24). Tolson (2008) remembered his speech at the Democratic National Convention, where his words inspired listeners with hope and change but also may be considered “fluff:”

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us…. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America--there is the United States of America…. The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states…. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an 'awesome God' in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states, and yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.

His language in this speech elevated Americans to a level above “the pundits,” and recognized them as the people capable of unifying the country. He sent the message that he will represent all Americans, regardless of party preference or individual beliefs. TIME (2009) recognized that “his calm thoughtfulness and even-keeled explanatory style was an antidote to our polarized, overhead politics” (p. 6). He transcended typical politics and portrayed himself as a new kind of politician, one that was unconcerned with party politics and regarded the nation as a whole. The problem lies in the fact that politics is near impossible to change, and although he may have viewed himself as this new, bipartisan politician, he was still functioning in the old type of politics. Even though his language was positive and hopeful for change, his words could not promise that a real change in politics was coming with his presidency.

Obama’s African-American race sometimes created heated debates during the campaign, but these instances provide a perfect example of his use of uplifting language. Many people did not believe the country was ready for an African-American president, and his supporters worried that people would not vote for him solely because of his race. Those who were against him ridiculed, insulted, and degraded him because of his race, hoping to end his chances of becoming president. However, Obama did not fight back but instead took this opportunity to again express hope in a new future, a future that would include a black president and overcome a history of discrimination (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, pp. 97-8). He reframed the issue of race by using positive language, and soon the idea of a black president became a symbol of the change his presidency could bring. He responded to the criticism and setbacks, “So many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow,” but he recognized that change was possible because of “the next generation—the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history” (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, p. 98). Obama’s language instilled responsibility and hope in younger Americans to bring about lasting change to the nation. He gave the country encouragement that the future would lack racial inequalities and injustices. His inspirational words were inclusive of the next generation, bringing young Americans into the heart of the campaign and relying on them for a different future. Tolson (2008) recognized this common tactic that Obama used: “Barack Obama's oratory, at its best, is a kind of mirror, turning the people's gaze back upon themselves and forcing them to ask what they want their nation to be.” In this speech, he challenged the next generation to create the change that they desire. Nevertheless, as hopeful as Obama may be, eliminating the issue of race is an idealistic and improbable goal. This hopeful language would not last through the whole campaign, and Obama needed to start giving people some concrete solutions.

Language for the Times

Although Obama’s hopeful language inspired millions of Americans, they still yearned for real change from the past administration, from the failed policies, and from the economic downturn. Obama realized his language needed to change to be responsive of the citizens’ concerns. Obama’s two books, which were published before the campaign, along with his early speeches all relied on big, encouraging language. Lacking concrete plans for change, Obama lost early primaries largely because people did not know how he was going to tackle the country’s largest problems, like Iraq and the economy (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, pp. 118-9). After the primary season, his language became more “simple, direct, and pragmatic” (TIME, 2009, p. 89). To give a more detailed picture of his plans, he began using “statistics, anecdotes, and policy proposals” that explicitly described the changes he planned on making (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, p. 116). The economic and political situation required that he begin planning for years ahead rather than months ahead. It became clear that in the coming months, he was going to have to give people bad news they would not want to hear. Consequently, he adopted a new maturity and calmness to his language that would sustain people’s faith in the government and their participation in the economy through these hard times (TIME, 2009, p. 89). He openly told people that there would be continued tough times ahead instead of avoiding the truth. He then followed his admissions of the harsh truth with confidence that he was the best candidate to handle the crises. His mature and calm language proved to people that he would effectively use his past experiences and maintain his composure through the difficult times ahead.

By the time Obama won the general election in November, his language had significantly changed from when he first announced his candidacy. His Inaugural Address was “sharply worded” and “coherent,” with an “unflinching philosophy of government.” His tone was “resolute, suffused with sobriety, reflecting a tough-minded realism” (TIME, 2009, p. 110). His language had fully evolved into more direct, simple statements that were necessary for the people to understand the current situation. For example, Obama said, “Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account—to spend wisely, reform bad habits and do our business in the light of day” (TIME, 2009, p. 110). His language spoke to all people, not just highly educated professionals and other politicians. He used language that common people could understand so that they could comprehend his plans and understand what changes he would support. The language of his Inaugural Address showed the distinct change from the language with which he began his campaign.

The Language of Past Presidents Reflected in Obama’s Language

Obama borrowed language from past successful presidents. He used historical references in his speeches to remind people how far America has progressed and show people how much farther we are still capable of progressing. Many of his speeches drew inspiration from Lincoln, who was also a young senator from Illinois running for president. At the 2008 Convention Obama said, “The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have no served a Red America or a Blue America—they have served the United States of America” (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, p. 100). These lines echoed Lincoln’s language when he faced the challenge of keeping the Union together. At the Republican Convention in 1858, Lincoln famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” while in his Second Inaugural Address he said, “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other . . . With malice toward none, with charity for all, . . . let us strive on to finish the work we are in . . . to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves.” Obama does not face the problem of succession, but he faces the problem of political polarization. Democrats and Republicans are finding the challenge of working together becoming more and more difficult, with each side refusing to compromise. Obama reflected on Lincoln’s language to give the country hope that he will be able to bring both parties together in these times of economic uncertainty and lengthy military engagements.

Obama also looked to Thomas Jefferson to remind people of the hopefulness of the American Revolution, to Andrew Jackson to remind people of the “collective sacrifice” of defeating the British at the Battle of New Orleans, and to Franklin Roosevelt to remind people of the hope of the New Deal even during the worst depression in history (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, pp. 102-3). He wanted to make people associate him with these presidents so that they would also relate these presidents’ successes to Obama’s future successes. Similarly, Obama’s language that inspired people to overcome fear with hope stemmed from Roosevelt’s famous quote, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, p. 103). By using language that reminded people of these great past presidents, Obama convinced people to have hope in him, just as these past great presidents gave the necessary hope to Americans during so many of the country’s struggles. In his speech entitled “The Audacity of Hope,” he recalled the past and connected it to the hope for the future: “This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and our commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up to the legacy of our forbearers and the promise of future generations . . . And fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, independents, I say to you, tonight, we have more work to do” (Neer, 2008, p. 40). Obama elevated the nation’s past by describing it as a “legacy,” implying something great to live up to. He then compared it to the present and found a shortcoming. However, he proceeded to inspire all Americans with the hope that if we work together, we are capable of creating a future that is as great as the past legacy of the country. Obama used the success of past presidents along with references to past successes of the country to give hope to people that there will be future successes during his presidency even in light of the grim situation.

Presidents’ abilities to convey language in a way that inspires the country contributes to their perceived abilities to govern. Obama’s language made people believe that he had the capability to better the nation even in light of his race, youthfulness, and limited years in the Senate. However, politicians’ language can also have a significant effect on their reputations once they leave office. Grady (2008) recalled Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill’s abilities of combating the Civil War, the Great Depression, and the bombings of Britain, respectively, with their speeches. Their language inspired America and Britain to continue fighting and not give up hope for more peaceful days ahead. These leaders restored faith in the country, and now Obama has to do the same thing with the worsening of the financial crisis and the crises in the Middle East. However, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Churchill are remembered for their language because they were successful at bringing their respective countries out of each crisis. Similarly, Obama’s language will only be remembered for its greatness if he can successfully handle the problems the country now faces (Grady, 2008). Tolson (2008) also cautioned that Obama’s language may be at a level of “loftiness that is in danger of soaring beyond this world.” It is possible that Obama used too much inspiring, big language to ever live up to. If this is true, he will only be remembered for his false promises and unsubstantiated hope. Interestingly, Obama used the word “humble” or implied humility in many of his speeches and interviews. Obama has said, “I don’t expect that simply because I can move people in speeches that automatically qualifies me . . . I have to earn this job” (Dixit & Kristal, 2007, p. 75). He recognized that he is a gifted speechwriter and speaker, but he also recognized that he is going to have to prove himself once in office. If he is to join the ranks of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Reagan, the “Great Communicator,” then his actions must reinforce his language (Grady, 2008). On the other hand, if Obama does not succeed in helping Americans through these crises, his language will be disregarded as the empty rhetoric his opponents accused him of from the beginning.

A president’s language undoubtedly affects all aspects of their campaign and time in office. Obama was immediately recognized for his inspirational and optimistic language. He altered his language into more simple but concrete words to ease people’s fears of the future. His talent for language was compared to some of the greatest speakers in history, but Obama still has to live up to the standards he has set for himself with his promising language. Tolson (2008) reflected on the many uses for a president’s language, “Even more than explaining policies or setting new directions, a president's speech shows how well he hears the people--their hopes, their fears, their best and worst angels--and, most crucially, how he uses what he hears to achieve his goals.” The country knows that Obama can listen to people’s hopes and fears for the future, for he proved that during the campaign. The real test, however, is his ability to sustain that hope and resolve those fears now that he is in office. His language may have gotten him into the White House, but his actions will decide if he is reelected for another four years.

References

Dixit, J., & Kristal, M. (2007, July-August). Reading between the lines. Psychology Today, 40, 74-79.

Grady, S. (2008, November 19). His words will matter. USA Today, sec. News: p. 13a.

Kennedy-Shaffer, A. (2009). The Obama revolution. Beverly Hills: Phoenix Books, Inc.

Lincoln, Abraham. (1858, June 16). “Address to the Republican Convention.” Chicago.

Lincoln, Abraham. (1865, March 4). “Second Inaugural Address.” The White House, Washington D.C.

Neer, B. (2008). Barack Obama for beginners: An essential guide. Hanover: For Beginners LLC.

TIME. (2009). President Obama: The path to the White House. New York: TIME Books, Time Inc.

Tolson, J. (2008, October 27). The two rivals as men of their words. U.S. News & World Report, 145, 47.

Meaningful Conversations Boost Kids’ Language Skills

A new Dutch study found that parents that have meaningful conversations with their young kids boost their children’s language skills. It may seem obvious that parents who speak with their kids are advancing their language acquisition, but this study is unique because it studied “serious conversations...dialogues that permit them to make meaningful contributions to the subject at hand.” The study included children from Turkish, Moroccan-Berber, and Dutch backgrounds.

Teachers use more complex sentences and conceptual language, and children must learn to follow along. Having prior experience with adult conversations allows these children to begin understanding their teachers faster than other children. Reading to children and telling them stories also has the same effects.

This article reminded me of the conversation we had in class about cultures in which the parents do not speak to their children until they are able to have an intelligent conversation. According to this study, those children will be behind once they get to school and immediately have a disadvantage. These parents may not believe they are harming their children, but they do not realize that they are not progressing their children’s academic abilities. Is it fair to the children that they are behind their peers because of a cultural difference? Are the parents depriving the children of the chance to excel academically? Like we talked about in class, could this be considered child abuse?

Similarly, parents who do not read to their children are depriving them of greater academic ability. The United States Department of Education has confirmed that children who are read to when they are young acquire language and literacy skills more effectively and perform better at reading comprehension and academics in general.

Full article about Dutch study here. And Department of Education article here.

Welsh assembly translation decision backed by review

Recently, there was a debate in Wales because certain speeches were not going to be translated into Welsh from English any longer. A third party review panel was brought in to consider the plan and decided that translations will be stopped and effectively save £250,000 per year. The Welsh Language Board opposed this and may propose a legal challenge. The Welsh do not believe they are being treated as equal citizens and worry that this is the beginning of the decline of their language. The review panel wants to support the Welsh language in other, more meaningful ways that will spread the use of the Welsh language. They do not see this decision as harmful to the language and have requested that money be spent in other ways to promote the language more effectively.

(Full article here.)

Another article from the BBC website from a couple years ago discusses a revival in the Welsh language in the rural south. There is concern that the growing strength of the language could create a divide between Welsh speakers and English speakers. The article starts out with an interview with a native Welsh speaker. He says that being a Welsh speaker gives you an advantage in the workplace. After reviving the language, the Welsh speakers have gained a strong sense of nationalism. Now, the Welsh Assembly Government wants to create policies to further promote the language. The man believes that these policies have gone past an acceptable level. On the other hand, some people view the Welsh language as a necessary part of their identity and are embracing the new sense of nationalism. Other people are learning the language to set themselves apart from the norm and find meaning in their lives. No matter the reason, there is a concern that the language will cause English speakers to have a bitter attitude towards the Welsh or vice versa.

Britain presents a unique case because Wales is an specific area within Britain that speaks a different language than the rest of the country. More people speak English, of course, but Welsh is still prominent. Is it prominent enough to spend money translating documents? Would they then have to translate the documents into other languages as well? This new regulation may create the resentment that so many Welsh speakers are worried about. The Welsh seem to want to be a part of Britain and not separate themselves, but they worry their language could ruin this unity. It also seems that the Welsh government is going against many people’s wishes by promoting policies that benefit Welsh speakers only and isolate English speakers. With such a large debate among the Welsh people themselves, this will be a difficult debate to solve.

Language lessons for Democrats, from the political brain of Drew Westen

This article discusses the way Democrats use rhetoric as opposed to Republicans. Drew Westen is a new addition to the team of Democrats working on next fall’s campaign. He is a psychologist and neurologist rather than a politician. Westen suggests that the Democrats are using facts far too much instead of appealing to emotions. The examples he gives include using “the air we breathe and the water we drink” rather than “the environment” and “people who’ve lost their jobs” instead of “the unemployed.” As a psychologist and neurologist, Westen is basing his ideas on science that proves that people are more receptive to emotional appeals. The Democrats need to depart from their traditional list of facts and focus on “people’s core values and concerns.” John B. Larson, a Democrat Representative from Connecticut, has realized that constituents do not feel a connection with their representative, and this may come from the factual, unappealing language the Democrats use.

This all sounds contradictory to the messages of hope and change that Obama inspired voters with during his campaign. Obama may just be the exception, for he has a way with words that inspires, challenges, and motivates people like no politician has in years. However, the Democrats in the House and the Senate may need to change their rhetoric if they would like to see more votes in the fall.

It seems as though Obama has abandoned his message of hope and trust in the future since getting elected. His rhetoric has become realistic, addressing the crises that we are facing. His language has become more urgent, and he has been calling for “dramatic action” from Congress. He has been upfront about the problems the country is facing even if he must send a darker message than he did during his campaign.

There is a very good reason politicians use the inspiring, although less realistic, language that they do: people like to hear positive statements. People do not want to know that the economy is ruined, we are in the middle of a war, or that unemployment is rising. They want to think that there are better times ahead. But is it healthy for citizens to receive and believe false hope and false promises? Shouldn’t people know the truth, no matter how grim, so that they can prepare and take action? But when politicians are honest, they often do not win votes. Politicians’ sole purpose is to win elections, so they have no choice but to use hopeful language. Until citizens choose to elect politicians with a real, direct agenda, politicians’ speech will only cater to the public.

Obama article here.

Turkey’s fading linguistic heritage

Turkey is a country with diverse immigrants and, consequently, diverse languages. However, many of its languages are starting to die out, and some people criticize Turkey for not saving them before it’s too late. On the other hand, some Turkish people are not fond of the different dialects or languages in the country and see them as “a threat to the integrity of the nation state.”

The language of Laz is given as an example in the article of a language that is spoken in the mountains and is just now being rediscovered. However, many children do not speak Laz anymore and are instead learning Turkish. They say that the Turkish language is “perceived as the language of commercial success and modernity.” Younger generations are only exposed to Turkish, even in the classroom where teachers must stick to the Turkish curriculum.

The article closes with an unfortunate truth. In Turkey, people who speak Laz were humiliated in the past and have been looked down upon because of their language. Now the challenge is for people to start accepting and embracing their language again to ensure its survival.

The full article is here.

This YouTube video shows footage of Northeast Turkey. Laz has no relation to Turkish and does not sound like Turkish. There are fourteen other language in Turkey that are currently endangered. When asked, the speakers said Laz is spoken fluently today but younger generations are not speaking it, and that worries them. Language and cultures in Turkey have become more and more assimilated, so Laz has become less and less prominent. The first Laz dictionary was created recently so that the language will not be completely lost. Other publications have been brought to court on the basis that it spread “separatist propoganda.” Laz is not allowed to be taught in schools nor are Laz schools publically funded. Laz television cannot be funded either, although other languages are.

This case brings up a lot interesting ideas. First, it is hard for me to understand how people can be ashamed of the language they speak. I know this is because my first language is English, so I have never experienced shame or humiliation for speaking it. But I find it so unfortunate that other cultures are able to dictate which languages will be prominent and which should be wiped out. When I relate this to America, however, we are probably doing the same thing without realizing the effects English has on other languages. America is not as strict as Turkey seems to be, for we do not have an official language, and we encourage bilingual education for the most part. But what can people do that live in places that suppress languages? Is it possible for a small group of native speakers to fight against a strong government? The government is actively trying to stop the spread of Laz and is at the same time destroying a culture. Hopefully the Laz can embrace their language before they lose more of their speakers. But if not, their language as well as the fourteen others, will be assimilated into Turkish, and the Laz may lose their identity.

New Ideas About the Origin of Language

The University of Rochester has done a study on the origin of language in humans. They wanted to find out if a part of the human brain “gives humans advanced language capabilities over other animals.” To do the study, they were going to “determine if different brain regions were used to decipher sentences with different types of grammar.” The order of words is vital to the English language, while in Spanish, inflection and suffixes are necessary to give a sentence a certain meaning. Sign language uses both of these systems, so researchers studied sign language and found that the separate areas of the brain processed the two forms of sentences.

Researchers have found that there are only miniscule differences between the neurology of humans and animals. The significant difference is the size of our brain, which is bigger and allows for more advanced communication. The brain more than tripled in size about 200,000 years ago, and language developed at the same time. Researchers believe the brain may have increased in size so that language could develop.

The article then cites a book called The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley that claims that trade among different groups of people who speak different languages required the brain to evolve to understand different sentence structures. If this is true, the brain’s capacity to understand languages is much more modern than once believed.

Full article here.

Another article called the “History of Language” claims that communication is universal to all social animals, but one part of the brain, the cortical speech centre, is unique to humans. This section “organizes sound and meaning on a rational basis.” It is impossible to know when exactly language developed, but it was most definitely an extended process. Now, there are about five thousand spoken languages, but they all belong to about twenty groups. Each group is believed to have been derived from a common ancestor. Some experts believe that the original language developed as recently as a few thousand years ago. The article discusses language as an evolutionary process that is not so different from human evolution. The more useful a language is, the more it will spread. This evolution is ongoing even today.

The study of the origin of language is still incomplete, but researchers form new, interesting hypotheses constantly. Each new finding sheds light on the history of people and their interactions with each other. The findings also bring up many more questions and debates. The debates are still relevant to the present day because language is constantly evolving. Without always realizing it, we are in the midst of an evolutionary change. Language changes from century to century but also from generation to generation. Even writing as recent as Shakespeare’s in the 17^th century seems like a whole different language than the English we know today. What will our languages sound like in 50, 100, 300, 500 years? How are we contributing to these changes? Will the evolution of language ever stop? Which languages will survive the evolutionary trends?

Are we becoming a nation of potty-mouths?

Inappropriate language has become common in many areas, including politics, television, and everyday life. The article points out that in the past, profanity was not allowed on television or in newspapers but has recently been everywhere. The big question now is will our newly adopted language change people? Some experts say that this new language is a normal evolution and will not affect culture. Popular magazines, singers, and movies are using words like “suck” and “ass” all the time, but these used to be extremely rude, taboo words. The problem comes when people’s language starts to represent them. When this happens, people can get offended by language and judge the speaker as an offensive person. The article points out that the Internet has greatly contributed to the increase in profanity because the Internet is not censored. The article comes to the conclusion that language is circular. Words appear and then disappear and appear again. This does not mean our society is getting more profane, but rather that it is in one phase of the cycle.

The full article is here.

Those are multiple examples from many different kinds of people using inappropriate language. Clearly, profanity is everywhere, and it is becoming less and less taboo. Kids are learning words younger and younger. However, I don't think this a sign that our society is becoming more informal or more disrespectful. Teenagers tend to cuss because they think it makes them cooler and because they know they shouldn't use those words. The words become more attractive because they should not be used. I probably hear a greater amount of profanity because I am in college, where students are at the age that uses profanity the most. I notice that adults use this language much less and only when they are in the company of people they know well. Of course there are some exceptions, but for the most part, I find that it is my age group that uses these words so much. We will grow out of this stage, just as other generations have. We may carry a few words with us, but I do not believe our culture or society will be corrupted by foul language.

Language eruption

This article from The Boston Globe discusses how the Iceland volcano has spurred many conversations about language because of its name, Eyjafjallajökull. All kinds of reporters, including bloggers, have been trying to teach the public how to pronounce this word. But even reporters cannot get it right, and they often pronounce it differently from one another. Now, jokes are being made from people’s inability to spell or say the word.

However, other natural disasters have caused this same kind of conversation. For example, a volcano erupted in San Juan Parangaricutrio, Mexico. Then, a song was made out of it with the title, “Parangaricutirimicuaro.”

Also, the Iceland volcano has made people start using other words that have to do with a volcano. There is “phreatoplinian,” “jökulhlaup,” “flammivomous,” and “plume.” Commentators are also making jokes out of the volcano. On Twitter, there was a joke “that Europe had asked Iceland to send ‘CASH’ not ‘ASH.’”

Will these new volcanic words remain in our language after the crisis is over? Sometimes this does happen, such as –gate after the Watergate scandal. In 1883, shockwaves from Krakatoa were felt all over the world. Scientists called this the “equatorial smoke stream,” but now we know this as “the jet stream.” Only time will tell if the Iceland volcano leads to a change in language or perhaps an improvement in Irish pronunciation.

Mark Liberman, a writer for Language Log posted a video with a made up song with the word Eyjafjallajökull and corresponding verses. Maybe if everyone learned the song, more people could pronounce the word. Someone commented on his post with a link to a YouTube video called “Creepy robot mouth speaks Icelandic, Iceland volcano.” The video is exactly what the title says: twelve seconds of a weird robot pronouncing the word.

There are countless videos on YouTube concerning the volcano. This one is a CNN report that compiled many journalists and reporters trying to pronounce the word but ultimately failing. Reporters admit to not knowing how to pronounce the word, which makes it impossible to learn. Who is saying it correctly? Other reporters do not even attempt to say it and instead refer to it as something like the “Iceland volcano.” The CNN report calls this “volcanic naming avoidance syndrome.” Saturday Night Live, of course, finds this to be perfect material. The reporters then went to Iceland and found out English words that they find hard to pronounce. Apparently “pneumonia” and “weary” are two of the hardest. The reporters also found out that the word contains syllables that mean island, mountain, and glacier, making the word Eyjafjallajökull very obvious and understandable. Some reporters are calling it “E 15,” which means E for the volcano’s first letter and then 15 for the rest of the letters. Even though we cannot say the word, at least we have found humor in a not-so-humorous situation.

So how do some words or phrases get embedded in our language? Are some more humorous like Eyjafjallajökull? More serious like Watergate? How does the news or other sources of information contribute to the popularity of a word? And what kind of people adopt these new words? Is it specific generations, citizens, or random groups of people? I wonder what other people think of our newly adopted words. For example, if Eyjafjallajökull is a permanent addition to our language, what will Icelanders think? Will they find it funny that we cannot pronounce this “simple” word? Would they be offended that we are making their language humorous?

Interpreters bridge doctor-patient barrier

On the first day of class, we talked a little bit about the relationship between a doctor and a patient who speak different languages. This article further discusses this by beginning with an experience of a young Iraqi woman. She claims that her head is in pain, and none of the medications are working. The doctor, speaking through an interpreter, advises her to go to a psychiatrist, but she refuses to because of a previous bad experience with a psychiatrist. Also, she claims that her mind is not the problem, perhaps because in Iraq, “there is a strong stigma that comes with mental illness.” Often times, when the patient and doctor must communicate through an interpreter, both become frustrated and the normal level of doctor-patient trust is not present. The article says that in cases with different languages, doctors are more likely to order more tests than are needed, the patient must stay in the hospital longer, and patients do not commit to their treatment.

The problem does not stop at mere translation. Cultural differences also come into view when the translator is trying to explain a doctor’s solution or prescription. Different cultures often do not understand the type of remedy the doctor is recommending. The article cites various cultural differences. In some cultures the men make health decisions for the women, breast cancer is looked down upon as a punishment for the patient’s actions, or patients are said to be mentally retarded when they are actually deaf.

Although hospitals and other medical facilities try to cope with different languages by hiring translators, the translators must have much more knowledge than just the vocabulary of the two languages. The training required to understand different cultures and different attitudes would be enormous, but it is something that health professionals should invest time in. No patient should continue suffering because he or she speaks a different language. Patients may believe they are receiving better treatment by going to a more advanced country, but in reality they are disadvantaged because of the language barrier. This problem brings up ethical questions as well. If patients’ cultures do not allow them to accept treatment, should doctors from a different culture force the treatment? How do doctors go about telling patients to ignore what their cultures believe? Should laws dictate how patients accept treatment? For example, in the case cited in the article about the men making decisions about women’s health. Should there be laws to counter the men’s decisions and provide health care for women of this culture?

The United States government has recognized the problem of patients and doctors speaking different languages. Title III of The American Disabilities Act includes a section that requires “Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities” to provide access for disabled people, which includes “professional office of a health care provider” and hospitals. The Act includes people who are deaf or hard of hearing, implying that sign language interpreters must be available. The case of deaf people brings up more questions that must be answered, such as when is an interpreter necessary? Can a deaf person go to a routine check-up without an interpreter or should the hospital provide one? And will deaf people feel comfortable with an interpreter or would they feel limited in what they can express to the doctor? All of these possibilities are still being considered and reform is still necessary. It is important that hospitals and medical facilities continue to better their programs for people who cannot communicate in the language of the doctors. However, the government as well as doctors are moving in the right direction.

Comparing the Language of Different Bible Versions

NIV of Genesis:

(1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (2) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (3) And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (4) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

King James Version of Genesis:

(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

There are many little differences between the two versions, yet they make a substantial difference in the understanding of the verses. The first verse in the King James Version uses “heaven” instead of “heavens.” “Heaven” implies one and only one heaven, making the statement very direct and defined. The King James Version then uses the word “upon” twice, while the NIV uses “over.” “Upon” implies among the earth, surrounding the lands. “Over” gives the impression of above and separated from the world. The King James Version then uses “moved upon the face of the waters” instead of “was hovering over the waters.” Hovering gives the Spirit a more ghost-like, mystical persona, whereas “moved upon” seems more human and realistic. The NIV says, “he separated the light from the darkness,” but the King James says, “God divided the light from the darkness.” “Separated” gives the impression of perpetual distance, completely distinct from one another. It also implies that the objects that are being separated, in this case darkness and light, do not belong together. “Divided” seems as though they can be put back together in some way, perhaps over time. “Divided” also implies a less organized and less intentional split. It is as though God is just splitting up darkness and light without any concern for which one goes where or for how definite the splitting will be.

Why can’t we get bilingual education right?

There is still a huge debate as to whether bilingual education is positive or negative. But there is also an ongoing debate about how to teach children a second language. Many methods have been developed and used, but some people believe some are more effective than others. Texas has implemented a program called Two-Way Dual Language program that teaches children a second language by using their native language. Some bilingual programs completely immerse students in the new language without speaking in the native language to teach the children. Supporters of the Two-Way Dual Language program claim that children will benefit by being taught the new language in their native language. Also, because this program teaches in both languages, the school can teach students who speak two different languages in the same classroom. By the end of the program, both sets of students will be fluent in both languages. This program also reinforces their native language, and students score better on tests in their native language.

The whole article is here.

Another article discusses this new program in Texas and gives multiple reasons to support it. The program helps students become “bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural.” The greatest benefit of this program may be the cultural understanding the students gain from each other. Because students of different native languages are put together in one classroom, they learn to help each other with their respective languages. They become friends with people who are from different backgrounds than their own, and they form strong bonds with each other. A lot of bilingual programs only teach students the language without any emphasis on the culture of the people who speak that language. This program is unique because the students do gain an understanding of the culture because they can interact one-on-one with speakers of a different language than their own.

These students will, in turn, become respectful and more open to people of other cultures and languages in the future. Programs such as these could be the answer to greater problems in the world like racism and prejudice. Although it would take a huge change in the education system to influence enough students, bilingual education can have bigger implications than just proficiency in two languages. The more students learn about and come to appreciate other languages, the more accepting they will be. Learning to accept people different than yourself is an invaluable lesson and can have an enormous effect on future generations.

Is American Sign Language a ‘foreign’ language?

This article brings up many intriguing questions about language and culture. Some universities have declared American Sign Language an official foreign language because it is “distinct from spoken English and that its coursework provides a new perspective akin to the cultural immersion they'd experience in French, Spanish or other traditional language classes.” Critics argue that it is not a foreign language because it is an indigenous language and does not have academic literature. Also, it does not have “the same elements of culture as other foreign language courses.” But deaf people would argue that there is a culture surrounding sign language, including poetry and history. Now, many universities are changing the names of their foreign language programs to “world languages” or “classical and modern languages” to incorporate those languages that were previously rejected from the foreign language program. The article ends with a powerful quote from a professor at Central Connecticut State University: “One of the worst things you can do to a human being is to say, ‘Your language doesn’t count.’”

The article questions the very definition of a language. Even after people have been using language for centuries, there is still a debate surrounding what exactly makes something a language. Additionally, the article questions what culture is defined by. And does language have to be linked to culture? There is no definite answer for any of these questions. A language to one person may not be a language to another; similarly, a culture to one person may not be a culture to another. Who has the ability to define culture though?

The Center for Applied Linguistics defines language and culture, but clearly these topics are still uncertain for many universities that have yet to adopt ASL as a foreign language. The Center for Applied Linguistics discusses many of the concerns surrounding American Sign Language (ASL) as a foreign language. The Center claims that ASL is a language because it is fully developed and has a complex grammatical structure. Some people do not consider ASL a foreign language because it is indigenous to the U.S., but so are many Native American languages that are considered foreign. The Center recognizes the Deaf culture, including history and arts like dance, theater, and poetry that the Chicago Tribune article referred to. It also notes that there is a writing system for ASL, but it is not well known.

Expert explains debate body language

Last Thursday, Britain had its first televised debate with the leaders of the three main political parties. David Cameron is the leader of the Conservative party, who is currently in the lead but not far enough to gain an overall majority. Gordon Brown is the current Prime Minister for the Labour Party, and Nick Clegg is the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who have not yet controlled Parliament but are making considerable gains in this election.

In recent weeks there has been speculation on the effect the debates will have on the voters. Some political scientists argue there is no electoral effect, while others say debates can make a huge difference. For Americans, the first debates that come to mind are the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates. These were America’s first televised debates and perhaps the most remembered (next to Reagan and Carter). Kennedy was viewed as a young, inexperienced candidate, and he was behind in the polls. Nevertheless, Kennedy was made for television. He was suntanned from campaigning in California, he wore a suit that nicely contrasted with the background, and he was able to use language to put Nixon on the defense. The result of the four debates between the two candidates was Kennedy’s huge jump in the polls and eventual win.

Here is a short YouTube clip describing the debates, including images of how the candidates appeared on television. And here is an image of Kennedy (left) and Nixon (right) on television.

But not all debates are as influential on the public as the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Political scientists in Britain have not yet had enough time to determine the effects of their first debates, and even after the campaign, there will probably still be much disagreement. However, the body language expert from this article describes the candidates: “Nick Clegg was the nice guy, David Cameron was the well-rehearsed but nervous performer, while Gordon Brown was the alpha male.” These conclusions did not come from their debate skills but rather from their body language during the debates.

The expert claims that Clegg came off as relaxed, while his gestures made him seem like a friend to the audience. Brown seemed like a “born leader” and was very strong, with expressive body language. Cameron looked “anxious and worried.” He also seemed detached from the audience.

Often times, the audience focuses on body language cues more than the actual issues. This could be a problem because people are voting for a personality rather than the candidate that represents their views. A candidate that is a natural performer, like Kennedy was, can overtake a more qualified candidate who may have been better for the country. Nevertheless, the fact that image becomes more influential in a voter’s decision is very telling of the power of body language. We often think of spoken language as our main way of communicating, but this is not always true. The subtle clues we give off as we speak are able to communicate much more information and maybe more accurate information. Often, we can tell if people are lying if they look nervous or do not look someone in the eye. We can tell if people are sincere by their gestures and tone. In terms of politics, maybe it is better that people are judging politicians by their performance on television. Politicians are notorious for bending the truth to help their position or leaving out or stressing certain facts that benefit their own campaign. If people have the ability to decipher the most genuine candidate, maybe they are picking the best leaders.

This is a topic that political scientists will debate forever. Britain is just now joining the argument. Campaigning has undoubtedly become a performance, but is this good for politics and for the country as a whole?

U.S. Reviews New York Police Dealings With People Who Don’t Speak English

The Justice Department is looking into how the New York Police Department handles cases involving people who do not speak English. The Justice Department, who says the investigation is routine and not sparked by a problem, wants to make sure the police are following all civil rights laws. The Department wants to find out if the language barrier affects the way police treat non-English speakers. The review will take about six months, and the federal government could reduce grants if the Department finds problems with the NYPD. The police department claims it has been trying to find ways to better the interactions with police and immigrants. They have many officers who speak foreign languages, and they have a “multilingual line” for callers who do not speak English.

In July of 2008, Mayor Bloomberg signed the language access plan that promises immigrants “a meaningful ability to take advantage of police services.” However, some groups will present cases in which the police officers did not take care of the needs of immigrants. These groups accuse officers of labeling non-English speakers as “uncooperative” because they do not understand the police. The NYPD does not agree with these accusations but still plans to improve its program as best it can.

Here is the full article.

Language Access Plan

The language access plan gives police the ability to use either a Department interpreter or the Language Line for translation over the phone, which is the most efficient. The NYPD attempts to “provide timely and meaningful access” for non-English speakers. The language services are free and available upon request.

The police found Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Haitian Creole, Russian, and Italian to be the most widely spoken languages in New York City, so “essential public documents” are available in these languages, and these languages are the basis for the language access plan. Nevertheless, the Language Line is still available in all languages.

The NYPD considers its language services for crime victims to be the most important. Bilingual members in the community assist in these cases before an interpreter is found from the Volunteer Language Program, which has almost fourteen thousand members and can translate fifty languages.

Bilingual police applicants are given an advantage in the hiring process. All city agency websites are translated into the six most spoken languages. Signs that tell the public about the language services are translated into twenty-two languages. Chosen police forms are also translated into a variety of languages. The records of language services will be kept and reviewed every year to ensure proper cooperation with the language access plan.

I have always thought that the United States does not take adequate measures to preserve the native languages of its immigrants. As such a dominant and successful country in the global market, I also understand why people strive to learn English. However, an instance like the language access plan gives immigrants a chance to use their native languages in their every day lives. Above all, this plan ensures the safety of all people of New York City. I could not imagine not getting help from the police department because they could not understand the language I am speaking. In a time of an emergency, all people should have access to the help they need.

Acquiring language confidence

This article introduces the 4S Accelerated English Programme, which seeks to teach the English language to people in a short time span. Keith Wright developed this program, and now people with backgrounds in many different languages are using it to become proficient in English. There are two categories of skills to learn English: Receptive and Productive. For this program, Receptive includes reading, listening, and viewing, and Productive includes speaking, writing, and interpretation. The program recognizes the fact that people gain information by looking, not just reading or listening. After people look at something, they interpret it in writing or speech, so this program takes that into account.

There are three things that a person needs to be competent in English: pronunciation and spelling, understanding words and sentence structure, and grammar. People must know the unique characteristics of English, why words are spelt and mean what they do, and the basic rules of grammar.

People still learning English usually do not use correct pronunciation or grammar. To improve pronunciation, people must learn the characteristics of English. Wright’s program has thirty characteristics, which include how syllables are stressed differently, the different sounds that symbols make, words that can be used for different parts of speech, and words that have many definitions. After people master these skills, they can become proficient in the English language.

Keith Wright wrote another article that explains how best to teach his program. A teacher must determine the individual needs of new English speakers, including their ages, genders, and cultures.

People learning English have to learn sounds, words, and concepts that their languages do not have. This means that teachers have to understand the learners’ culture so that they will be able to reconcile the differences between their native language and English. Wright also believes technology is a huge advantage to learning English, including computers and DVD players.

He gives some tips to mastering the language. Learners should speak the language as much as possible, teachers need to guide learners and give them helpful feedback, learners need to make connections between concepts, and learners should be exposed to stimulated real-life situations. Also, learners should enjoy learning the new language.

Here is the full article.

These articles interested me because I tend to forget how difficult it is for foreign speakers to learn English. Where I live (Los Angeles area), there are many immigrants, mainly Hispanic, who try to speak English, but it is often very broken English. I forget that there are so many different things, like stressing the correct syllables, to overcome when learning English.

It also surprises me that there is such a systematic way to learn a language, like Keith Wright has developed. If more programs like this are created and perfected, assimilation could become much easier in the future. Language barriers would be knocked down, and people would be able to relate to each other more easily. However, this program makes it seem as though all people learn languages in the same way. I do not find this to be true, so I wonder how the program takes that into consideration.

Articles about Plane Crash

Here are the links to the articles (I didn’t know how to save them as a PDF). These are the most read daily newspapers from the United Kingdom, and they are all in English. The circulation is the total readership of January 2010.

The Sun (3,006,565)

Polish President killed in air crash

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2927480/Polish-President-killed-in-air-crash.html

Daily Mail (2,120,347)

A nation in mourning: Poland’s president and wife among 97 dead as their plane crashes in Russia

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1265016/Polish-president-Lech-Kaczynski-dies-plane-crash-Russia.html

Daily Mirror (1,218,425)

Polish president dies in jet disaster

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/04/11/polish-president-dies-in-jet-disaster-115875-22176576/

Polish President Lech Kaczynski killed in plane crash in Smolensk, Russia

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/04/10/polish-president-lech-kaczynski-killed-in-plane-crash-in-smolensk-russia-115875-22175659/

Daily Star (779,376)

UK Poles Mourn Disaster Victims

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/04/10/polish-president-lech-kaczynski-killed-in-plane-crash-in-smolensk-russia-115875-22175659/

Daily Telegraph (691,128)

Poland in shock as president dies in air crash

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7574238/Poland-in-shock-as-president-dies-in-crash.html

Polish president’s plane crashes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7574180/Polish-presidents-plane-crashes.html

Poland declares week of mourning after president among 96 dead in plane crash

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7575553/Poland-declares-week-of-mourning-after-president-among-96-dead-in-plane-crash.html

Indian Tribes Go in Search of Their Lost Languages

Two hundred years ago, Long Island was home to Indian tribes that spoke the languages of Shinnecock and Unkechaug. Stony Brook University in New York is now trying to bring back these extinct languages. They want the tribes’ members to continue speaking these languages because they believe language helps understand a tribe’s culture and history. Chief Harry Wallace is the leader of the Unkechaug Nation and says that children of the tribe are more successful academically when they have a linguistic and cultural basis.

There were three hundred indigenous languages in the U.S., but there are now only one hundred and seventy-five. The Indigenous Language Institute believes that only twenty indigenous languages will be spoken by 2050. Many American Indians have been trying to revive languages because “language is a cultural glue that holds a community together, linking generations and preserving a heritage and values.” Bruce Cole is the chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and views language as “the DNA of a culture.” Language often gives insight into ancestors’ minds and lives.

It is difficult to bring a language back because so few people speak it, and new generations must continue to speak it. A society must use the language to function in order to sustain it. For example, the Hebrew language was unspoken for two thousand years, but the creation of the State of Israel instigated its revival and is often used in Jewish societies.

Shinnecock and Unkechaug will be especially difficult to revive because there are few records of the language. They have to rely on the family of Algonquian languages, of which Shinnecock and Unkechaug are a part, to fill in the missing gaps. They are aiming to discover the sound, vocabulary, and structure of the language before they introduce it to the community.

The full article is here.

Here is a map of where many Indian tribes lived in the Northeast, including the Shinnecock and Unkechaug Nations on Long Island.

The Unquachog Tribe is one of the four Quiripi tribes that share a similar language. There are only four documents left that use their language, so researchers are not positive if they all used the same language or related languages or different dialects of one language. European diseases devastated Indians in the Northeast of the United States, so the survivors came together and lost the identities of their individual tribes.

This website has links to more information about the Quiripi tribes, samples of their language, and maps of where they lived.

The Shinnecock Indian Nation created a computer program that will help revive and store the Shinnecock language so that it can be taught to future generations. The woman who owns the company that created the software has ties to the Shinnecock Nation all the way back to the seventeenth century. She is doing all she can to help restore the language because she knows that most Indian tribes are losing their last native speakers. The program can record words, phrases, songs, videos, and illustrations. Now, speakers of other languages than Native American languages want to purchase the software to retain their languages as well.

The full article about the computer program is here.

This website has more information, including the history and culture, about the Shinnecock Indian Nation.

This story is unique because it discusses a language that has been lost in the United States. Many Europeans that immigrated to the United States adopted English, but their languages are still spoken in their respective countries. The Native Americans, on the other hand, have completely lost their languages because the United States was their original home. I wonder if the Indians’ efforts have come too late. Now that the younger generations are speaking English and society is functioning around the English language, it will be much harder to bring back the Shinnecock and Unquachog languages. Also, the computer system seems very fabricated and impersonal. If they want to retain the language in order to understand the culture of the tribes, will a computer program be able to express the language in a way that also conveys cultural meaning? And will the people who learn the language feel the same connection to their roots as those who grew up speaking the language?

Government should be required to use clear language

The Plain Language Act has already been passed by the House of Representatives but is still being debated in the Senate. This legislation would require that all government documents be written in “clear, concise, well-organized” language. Bill Clinton tried to encourage easily readable documents, but most federal documents cannot be clearly understood. The article cites the example of SUV safety labels. The federal government requires that SUVs have a rollover-warning sticker, but the old label was so long that people did not read it. Now, a new label has been created that uses bullet points, pictures, and colors. This legislation would benefit the citizens of the United States, for they would be able to understand what the government is doing, what changes are being made, and how the government is functioning. Less ambiguous language would prevent confusion and save time for politicians, bureaucrats, and citizens. There would be less disagreement and greater knowledge of government actions.

The full article is here.

The Supreme Court has been guilty of using ambiguous language for landmark cases as well, namely Brown II. When the Supreme Court decided how and when to proceed with desegregation, they used the phrase “with all deliberate speed.” Nobody knew exactly what this phrase meant, and the words “deliberate” and “speed” seemed to contradict each other. “Deliberate” can mean planned, carefully weighed, and slow in deciding, while “speed” calls for quickness of action. Courts, schools, and citizens could, therefore, understand the Court’s ruling very differently and take action in different ways. Supporters of Brown v. Board were unhappy with the Court’s handling of the implementation of desegregation. Opponents of Brown could use the Court’s ambiguous language to resist change and delay integrating schools. The Plain Language Act would prevent future documents from being misinterpreted and would ensure that government decisions are followed.

The Plain Language Act can be read in its entirety here. This website gives the background of the bill, beginning with Representative Bruce Braley’s (D-IA) initial introduction in February 2009. Also, the current status of the bill in the Senate is updated regularly. Details about the roll call vote to pass the bill in the House are also on the website.

Braley commented on his bill, saying the Plain Language Act will increase understanding but also “increase government accountability.” He argues that clear language allows the public to understand the actions and services of the federal government. Mainly, the Plain Language Act simplifies tax forms, federal college aid applications, Veterans Administration forms, and other common government documents. This website gives the guidelines for plain language, which include short words, the use of “you,” short sentences, avoiding legal language, and avoiding double negatives. The website also has examples of federal documents before the Plain Language Act and how they would be rewritten.

Although this bill may not translate to Supreme Court decisions, it is a necessary step in the right direction. Government transparency has become a topic of debate and was included on Obama’s agenda when he took office. Opening up the government to the public will lessen the partisan attacks by giving people the facts instead of leaving it up to politicians to inform the public of what is happening in Washington.

This bill is just another example of how language creeps into every aspect of our lives. Even language on such documents as tax returns can create confusion because of the different understandings of the words. The government must be aware of how it is using language and how the public interprets this language.

Hyenas use a laughing language to communicate

A new scientific report has found that the hyena’s laugh relays information about the family hierarchy. After determining the hyena’s age and status in the hierarchy, scientists compared the sounds and found that the pitch and timbre is an indication of the hyena’s status. The pitch relates to the hyena’s age, while the frequency of sounds relates to its dominance in the group. Hyenas often laugh when eating, but they also make noise when they are frustrated or need help from other hyenas when faced with a predator. When other member’s of the hyena’s clan hear the sounds, they can distinguish if the laugh is a call for help or if it can be ignored. Their sounds can be heard up to three miles away, providing an effective defense skill.

The full article can be found here.

Other animals, like whales, have also been shown to communicate through their own language. With the help of a computer program, researchers have discovered that whales are the only other animals that use hierarchal structure in language, incorporating syntax into their communication. Before the development of this program, scientists wondered if the previous analyses were too subjective, but now scientists can objectively analyze sounds. Their songs are complex and can last from six to thirty minutes. The sounds can be used for a variety of reasons, including attracting females. Still, whales’ sounds are very different than human language, and there is still much to be learned.

You can also listen to the sounds of whales on the article website.

The fact that so many other animals have developed a form of communication, or their own language, says a lot about the importance of language for every species. Animals rely on language for survival above all. I wonder how enormously different the world would be without language. Undoubtedly, some species would cease to exist, others would not have an effective way of living in a group, and the animal kingdom would be far different than it is currently.