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.