This is a discussion I've wanted to have within peer groups for a while.
Being of Caribbean heritage, I'm used to hearing "English" in two forms. American and Caribbean Patois. When I was a child, my parents spoke to me in patois during cultural activities, whenever they were trying to drive home important life lessons, around other Caribbean people, most normal conversation between us really. American English was something used for business or casual discussion with non Caribbean neighbors.
Growing up in a predominantly Hispanic environment, I always noticed that parents communicated using English vs. Spanish at specific times and moments much like my parents when communicating in certain ways.
My current partner speaks 5 languages. When interacting, she casually switches between languages to express certain feelings and emotions. She also like to point out how framing certain arguments can potentially work better in another language because of its operation rules.
What really got me interested in this is that I've found it harder to express myself in recent times using English. I seem unable to formulate a point although we have such a large vocabulary. It's like none of the vocabulary really means anything because the connotations, context, rules of the language, may guide the reader in an entirely different conclusion or take an unintended path because of how the words are arranged and used.
Yet, if I express that same idea to a peer using casual ebonics or something of the sort, they seem to understand the point being made easier. So, I'm not sure if this more people not really understanding the language or the language being inadequate for that purpose in of itself.
This is a complicated question that linguists have broken down into smaller, more specific questions. I'm not a linguist though, so I can't tell you the ins and the outs of the various aspects of those discussions. But, I can give a good example (I think). Since we're all familiar with English, have you ever noticed how specific the language is in regard to time? When speaking or writing English, it is generally clear when things are occurring. For example, I am now using the present progressive and simple present to express my thoughts. We also regularly construct sentences like, "I would have brought her lunch but I remembered her telling me that she would be going out for lunch with her boss". Yes, this is entirely possible in other languages, but kind of difficult (no matter what the language) and perhaps might phrased more along the lines of, "I did not bring her lunch. Earlier, she told me she would go out to eat with her boss" which serves the same general purpose, but does not convey the idea of intent, the conditional nature of that intent, nor the idea of the future from a past perspective. Language is inherently limited and imperfect. Perfect communication might be something like telepathy, where the exact meaning and feelings attached to meaning are flawlessly received and broadcast, but as things stand, that's not what we're working with. Notice how in English, it's entirely normal to ask someone to clarify what they mean, either in conversations in person, or in exchanges of text as in e-mail.
If you haven't already, I really urge you to listen to this Radiolab episode about a man who tried to make a language that would make perfect, symbolic language (5 minutes in, but the opening story is amazing as well). Amazing episode which sold me on Radiolab.
The following is a small selection of links relevant to Blissymbolics: http://www.blissym.com/ http://www.blissymbolics.org/ http://www.blissymbolics.us/
That was fantastic and sad. And beautiful in a way. I wonder if Bliss ever tried to convey his ideas to Shirley McNaughton using the Bliss symbols. I've done some work grading state standardized tests for children with disabilities and never seen Bliss symbols, though I'm American and as that episode of Radiolab mentions, Bliss symbols are mostly used in Canada and Sweden these days. Instead, children who have difficulty communicating use either American Sign Language captured on video or indicate their responses using Mayer-Johnson symbols like these: I think in some sense, Bliss was right to be angry. Sign languages tend not to be mutually intelligible, so not only are native ASL (which is not an analog of English, but a distinct language with its own grammar and vocabulary) speakers isolated from other Americans, but from other native sign language speakers from other countries or other sign languages within the country like the Martha's Vineyard Sign Language which went extinct in 1952. A universal language would be hard to maintain though, as languages adapt to what the speakers do in their everyday lives. For example, in many Asian languages, there are words for the many different types of rice and even words related to rice planting, production and culinary preparation while in English, those words do not exist, though they can be described. The fact that Bliss' interest was not in a spoken language, but rather a written language is fascinating, though even languages that are only written and not spoken as everyday means of communication, have their quirks too (as in the grammar and construction of phrases, etc.)
This looks cool, thanks for the recommendation! Do you have any recommendations for anything that has to do with neologisms? They're something I've been interested in and playing with for a while and I'd be really interested to get a more scholarly perspective on the topic.
Now you know why I use the word "yo" so often. There are five dialects of Thai: - gutter thai (what you speak on the street) - familiar thai (what you speak amongst friends) - conversational thai (what you speak amongst equals) - royal thai (what you speak when discussing official government business) - Holy thai (what the Monks speak to each other) English officially has one register. Much like English has only one gender, it provides for a lot of confusion and presents a real challenge to mastery. My daughter is currently in a daycare that uses a lot of spanish - and as a consequence, she has a smaller English vocabulary than a lot of her peers. She's also more likely to ask for more milk by saying "Mas?" I speak one language well and maybe two I can muddle through enough to embarrass myself. I think - and this is an educated guess - that a foreign vocabulary takes up the same space as a native vocabulary and that if you hold everything else equal, I'll know more words in my one language than you will in that same language for the simple fact that you have another language taking up space.
Thus one of my favorite aspects of Tolkien's writing -- the point has correctly been made that the English in which he wrote covered at least three such registers, probably more. A conscious decision to write the Hobbit in a 'low' dialect, the trilogy at a happy medium, and the Silmarillion among others in the classic high fantasy manner.English officially has one register.
Is human memory analogous to a hard drive, though? In regards to long-term memory, I don't believe we really have a limited amount of 'space' that we can fill up (short-term memory could be a different thing entirely). Everything I've read lately has suggested that memory has less to do with individual cells holding data, and more with memory being a process that arises from the interactions between cells. With this in mind, I think how many words you can "store" has more to do with the techniques you use to memorize them than how much of your total memory has been used up. Of course, all things equal, if you're putting the same amount of resources into memorizing two different languages then I'd assume you'd know less of each. However, I don't think this is as much due to an inherent limitation of the brain as it is due to a limitation of time and resources.I think - and this is an educated guess - that a foreign vocabulary takes up the same space as a native vocabulary and that if you hold everything else equal, I'll know more words in my one language than you will in that same language for the simple fact that you have another language taking up space.
Misses the point. So let's say Bob and Sue each spend sixteen hours a day in conversational English. They're exactly as intelligent and exactly as apt as each other. If you test them, you'll get the same scores. Now let's switch Sue to French for two hours a day. Same amount of effort, all else held equal. Bob is going to get fourteen more hours a week speaking English than Sue is. Sue is going to know a lot more French than Bob - but Bob will have an advantage. Obviously, there's a lot of variables here. Obviously, education isn't linear. If Bob and Sue are graduate students, you likely won't see a difference - but if Bob and Sue are toddlers, you will. If your vocabulary is in the tens of thousands of words, the expansion is going to be barely visible. If your vocabulary is in the hundreds of words, however, it makes a difference. Never mind the spinning platters - the bus has limited bandwidth.Is human memory analogous to a hard drive, though?
It sounds like you agree with the second part of my comment:Of course, all things equal, if you're putting the same amount of resources into memorizing two different languages then I'd assume you'd know less of each. However, I don't think this is as much due to an inherent limitation of the brain as it is due to a limitation of time and resources.
Depends, I think. Knowledge of another language could give one the ability to think more creatively in one's own language (speculating, as my novice appreciation for German and Spanish doesn't at all qualify me on this topic). It seems to me that diversity of words one knows is complementary to the ways in which the words are used. I would like to think that if I could master another language, I'd be able to apply some of the concepts that are currently foreign to me to English.
I think we've descended out of the fuzzy world of supposition and into the nasty empirical land of testable theories. I'm not going to pretend I have any more insight into this than what I've already typed - but I will say that my pediatrician mentioned that bilingual babies generally have smaller vocabularies in both languages and start talking later, but that these setbacks are offset quickly by other gains. A brief perusal of the web seems to bear out his arguments.
I've read that, as well. Do you plan to have your daughter continue to learn Spanish? One of my regrets is quitting German lessons when I was a kid, much to my father's protest. If/when I have a child, I think the things I'll be that parent about are music, sports and learning a second language (my dad, in retrospect, was way too forgiving). Of course, with the proliferation of immersion schools, I think the language thing is comparatively easier now than it was in the 80s.
Don't forget that child-rearing books in the 1980's advised against bilingualism or multilingualism, as language acquisition was not as well understood. What people could see was that bilingual kids took longer to speak and that they'd often respond in the other language, as they hadn't yet figured out when it was appropriate to do so.
We aren't actively teaching her Spanish. We're having her spend her days at a daycare in Venice where the two main workers speak to each other in Spanish and much of the discussion is in Spanish. As such, certain words she knows in English and certain words she knows in Spanish. For example, we've been trying to get her to say "all done" for six months now and her rendition is "rearrgh." Last night, however, she turned down milk by saying "no mas."
My educated guess is different from yours. English is my second language and I dare say I'm good at it. Over the years, I grew up slowly and steadily learning English, reading articles and English websites on a daily basis since what you guys call middle school. I don't think I would have made the same amount of progress in Dutch if I never learned English. Granted, I'm never winning awards for my writing in my native language, but I don't think it takes up the same space, just a bit of the space. I find this a really interesting topic. English is so ingrained in my language that I often prefer to explain something using English words. It is really common for me to throw English words into conversations with my friends. Sometimes I know the English word or expression and not the Dutch one, which is really weird.I think - and this is an educated guess - that a foreign vocabulary takes up the same space as a native vocabulary and that if you hold everything else equal, I'll know more words in my one language than you will in that same language for the simple fact that you have another language taking up space.
Jesus Christ, 5? Wowza. I know Arabic, English, and HS/College level Spanish. I think in Arabic a lot. This is especially true when I am exclaiming something - phrases like "Oh My God", "come on", "are you serious", "what the hell", "fuck that guy, for realz", etc. etc. Arabic just exclaims better. You sound like you're pissed off. There's no room for sarcasm. On that note, if I get really angry, I will switch to Arabic mid-sentence. This has been known to frighten my friends. I speak in Arabic with my parents. There is a large divide in respect that my parents don't get when I speak to them in English. "What?" in English is very much different then "What?" in Arabic - the tone changes, English sounds more disrespectful to them. Poetry is more varied, and in my opinion, more beautiful in Arabic. There are just so many more words than there are in English. I can't even describe some of the words that are in Arabic, in English. It's why the Quran isn't understood by most English speakers. Any serious scholar has to know Arabic to really read the book. And even then, it might be better to grow up with the language, just to gain the context better. I'm not sure I agree with Klein on this last point: I think that growing up with two languages, that isn't the case. I can effectively find usages for English and Arabic, without tripping up in one or the other. I am good with both languages, equally. That being said, I suppose the interesting question is, does growing up with both languages mean that neither are foreign? For example, my Spanish is pretty bad, even with all its similarities to Arabic. That language I would consider more "foreign" than English or Arabic. Edit: Real talk, I fuckin love this topic. Here's my response lil, by the way. - that a foreign vocabulary takes up the same space as a native vocabulary and that if you hold everything else equal, I'll know more words in my one language than you will in that same language for the simple fact that you have another language taking up space.
Nothing has prepared me for this all throughout my school years as much as the internet. You really need to choose your words carefully or about twelve different people will jump to conclusions about what you mean. I think you're on to something though. I'm wondering if it can be carried even further, that the native language of a person can predispose someone to traits in their personality because the structure of the words may influence how someone chooses to reason. I'm also wondering if expletives are the result of an inability to communicate, and that if there is a correlation to the amount of expletives in a language and the stiffness of which the language adheres to.It's like none of the vocabulary really means anything because the connotations, context, rules of the language, may guide the reader in an entirely different conclusion or take an unintended path because of how the words are arranged and used.
I recently saw a study that addressed just that. Americans, compared to other nationalities with unique cultures and languages, are predisposed to place blame for an event on an individual, even in situations where that's not necessarily the case. This may be tied to American regular use of possessive pronouns. Whereas others simply stated that "there was an error with the object or scenario," Americans would say "the operator caused an error in the object or scenario."
What you're referencing is called the "passive voice" which is not often used in American English (or any kind of English, really), except in things of a clinical or legal nature. Consider also that not all languages have a personal pronoun that functions exactly the way the pronoun "I" operates. For example, in Vietnamese one refers to oneself as "tôi" which can mean "I" or "me". However, this pronoun is only used in the formal register. Let's say that you and I are of similar age/status and both male. Then in Vietnamese we'd refer to each other as "anh" if we were already familiar with each other. Furthermore, we would each refer to ourselves as "anh" in the presence of the other, as we would already be acquainted. Thus, informally in Vietnamese, people always refer to themselves with the same pronoun that they would refer to another person of the same sex and rank. It would be erroneous to say that this feature of the language causes them to think entirely differently from native English speakers, but it certainly does shape certain aspects of the culture and how people interact with each other.
Cool discussion. Gotta wonder also, what about the written forms of a language vs. the spoken language. Do some language forms, casual English vs. formal English, convey meaning more effectively when spoken vs. written? Why is it that we speak with friends in a more casual form of the language? Is is that spoken language is paired with gestures, facial expressions, and other forms of body language that make the more precise forms of the language unnecessary? Go figure?...(said with a furrowed brow and shrugged shoulders)
For the first part: it depends on what you are trying to convey and to whom you are trying to convey it to. Until the advent of e-mail, text based communication was understood to be a function of preserving thoughts and ideas and communicating those thoughts and ideas both to people the writer knows (as in the case of a letter) or to people whom the writer may not know (as in books, official documents, etc.). In both cases, the understanding was that instantaneous communication was not possible or not desirable (as in the case of a legal document; the directives of legal documents are only enforceable if people can refer back to them whenever they wish, instead of having had to have been present when it was agreed upon in the first place). Also, in English (as in many writing traditions), writing was generally developed to keep track of things and those that kept track of things were people who were in power, like religious leaders and kings. Those people had titles and power and the language reflects that. It's of great help to priests to have a standard text to refer back to, to base their religious services from, for example. Spoken language (as far as linguists understand) was developed for coordinating efforts and sharing information, most likely about food and immediate danger. Thus, being understood and understood well by peer groups is of primary concern. Note how groups of good friends who have known each other for a significant amount of time will most often lapse into a kind of shorthand with each other and be able to read each other much better and with less effort than a person that a given member of that group, might work with. You are right that language is more than vocabulary, but also includes facial expressions, tones of voice, body language, etc. Language learners are often surprised by these mostly non-verbal things. For example, in the US, the gesture for "come here" is done with the palm up while the index finger curls toward the palm. In many parts of the world, this is extremely condescending and is used to beckon animals and only very young children. Instead, the polite version of the gesture in those parts of the world might be done with the palm facing the ground and all the fingers fold down at once from the large knuckles and the wrist might even be used to accentuate the action a bit. In any event, these unspoken things give us much more context in which to hang the content of what is being spoken. In writing, we only have the context of prior experience with the writer (of which there may be little or none) and the language that is used by the writer to convey the message. As the brain is inclined to look for patterns and meaning, the less context we are given in regard to a piece of writing, the more we will likely "read into" the language of it and the possible intent. So, long story short, writing and speaking are different. They developed at different times in human history and for different purposes. In both cases, the desire is to be understood and understanding is much easier between people who know each other very well. The better we know people, the less obvious our efforts to be understood may generally be (to an outsider) whereas the less we know people, the more likely we are to use highly structured and detailed language in an effort to ensure understanding.
Which language would best complement English, then? Imagine you're a monolingual English speaker, which other language would expose you to the most different ideas, feelings, etc? My guess is that it would be the language of the culture that is least similar to yours. What do you all think about this?
I've suspected this personally. Something about Japanese language and its culture is so expressive to me.
Well I think its like oky said, having a cultural expansion within languages may be most optimal. So you have to learn the base of English, Spanish, French, etc., but then it is required that you learn the cultures which have grown in/around/with it to communicate correctly. It's a daunting task as an adult, but not as a child.
Somewhat related : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_time_controversy