A new town, a new beginning, a new chapter in life.
I'm now about a month into my masters program in Applied Linguistics, where I'm taking a course on curriculum design, and TAing in Japanese. Meeting lots of people in my program; my fellow masters students seem more receptive to each other than undergrads would be -- which I find somewhat odd.
Through the content of my grammar course, I've discovered that a lot of my 'word' humour hinges on the semantic rather than the grammatical; although the wordplay is still there, certain functional elements are manipulated instead of structural ones. Here's looking forward to new discoveries and new friends.
'til next time!
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The i-
Like any good language pedant, I find show biz/advertising/business management are sore areas of linguistic abuse. Those in the latter tend to make up words or use excessive words in a poor attempt to sound professional. And those in the former tend to revert to French pronunciation for sufficiently anglicized words. Or they'll just make stuff up, like saying "P.S." when they mean "by the way".
But usually, there's some logic to it. "Longer is more formal than shorter" is a general rule that usually works, even if it sometimes results in tautologies (e.g. "irregardless," "as per your instructions," &c.) So, when Apple Inc came out with their line of products all headed with an i-, I thought that was a trademarked term, relating to the internet.
But in my research for graduate school, I came across the "iSchool" for MLS in a certain University in Canada. My first instincts were to treat that as a sort of virtual school; ie, one online. From the photos and course locations, one can infer that the iSchool is a brand, but that the program itself is nowhere virtual, and is in fact on campus. But how does a program website that purportedly sells the idea that they can teach how information is packaged and organised, fail to address the glaring semantic puzzle that all first-time visitors would confront?
But usually, there's some logic to it. "Longer is more formal than shorter" is a general rule that usually works, even if it sometimes results in tautologies (e.g. "irregardless," "as per your instructions," &c.) So, when Apple Inc came out with their line of products all headed with an i-, I thought that was a trademarked term, relating to the internet.
But in my research for graduate school, I came across the "iSchool" for MLS in a certain University in Canada. My first instincts were to treat that as a sort of virtual school; ie, one online. From the photos and course locations, one can infer that the iSchool is a brand, but that the program itself is nowhere virtual, and is in fact on campus. But how does a program website that purportedly sells the idea that they can teach how information is packaged and organised, fail to address the glaring semantic puzzle that all first-time visitors would confront?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Language Etiquette
In a world that's becoming increasingly internationally aware, there has also been a recent push towards bilinguals in nearly all facets of human vocations. Obvious industries include SLA, Linguistics and Business, but perhaps less obvious are areas such as the mathematics, sciences and arts. However, a quick look at history should show why this might be revived -- often, the leading work in a field isn't originally written in [your local language] and therefore must be learned in order to appreciate the subtleties of that work.
Naturally, the world is never uniform in its progress, a welcome reality that reflects the diversity in its denizens. It therefore should be no surprise that any two given individuals (even within the same city) will have varying degrees of proficiency in a mutual second language (with the assumption that they already speak the national language fluently). If, for example, two Canadians both happened to also study Mandarin, where person X is reasonably proficient, but person Y is just a beginner, it would be unfair of X to speak long strings of Mandarin to Y, since Y has no facility to parse or perceive X's utterances. Actually, unless there was a reason to speak in Mandarin (like, say, a Mandarin tutoring session), I'm usually of the opinion that one should stick to English (in the context of living in Canada). This sentiment is probably best captured by Emily Post in her book Etiquette (1920):
However, this rule is only solid in a non-lingual situation. Consider, for example, my personal situation in the German Club on campus. I'm fairly confident in my opinion that of all parties present, I probably have the weakest handle on the German language. And yet, it would be rather ridiculous to demand an English-only environment in a club that purportedly is for the German language [and culture].
So how would a socially responsible individual resolve such a conflict? I think it can be done in a combination of the following ways:
1. Speak slowly in the L2
That is, in a country that speaks X, and a club/society that speaks Y, language Y should be spoken slowly and clearly for the weaker students of Y. Why? Because those who are just beginning to study language Y, or who aren't as strong in Y will have more trouble parsing all the sounds in Y. Also, the speaker should be willing to repeat him/herself.
2. Offer translations in the L1
Which is to say, if there's an item in the L2 that's particularly idiomatic or culturally entrenched, it would do well to have an explanation handy. Again, weaker speakers of the second language will obviously have more trouble following the conversation or dialogue.
3. Be inviting
Suddenly switching into another language, even in a context-appropriate situation as a language club, can be rather isolating and alienating. It's important to make the weaker speakers feel more welcome. Afterall, we were all beginners at one point. Usually, I'd only start with insert words or phrases, to get the kids going (as in the Japanese culture club, where my language skills are markedly stronger than my German).
Does this mean that everybody involved in language learning has to be a specialist in SLA? No, not exactly. But I think that anybody who has been in a beginner SLA situation can relate to the feeling of being left out. Obviously there are two different responses that can be had -- some individuals react by vowing to learn the language better so that they can become the alienators. And of course, some clubs want to prune out the weaker speakers so that they can enjoy pure L2 conversation without having to worry about L1 explanations.
Unfortunately, that usually means reduced numbers in the club/society, and it also means a severely reduced scope of perspective. 'Sides, the more the merrier, right? Exclusivist clubs tend to die out, especially without an extraordinary amount of funding. So, the choice is yours! As for me, we'll see if I'm able to stick around in the German Club. Nobody's been making me feel particularly isolated, but on the other hand, the language barrier is clearly something to be overcome.
Naturally, the world is never uniform in its progress, a welcome reality that reflects the diversity in its denizens. It therefore should be no surprise that any two given individuals (even within the same city) will have varying degrees of proficiency in a mutual second language (with the assumption that they already speak the national language fluently). If, for example, two Canadians both happened to also study Mandarin, where person X is reasonably proficient, but person Y is just a beginner, it would be unfair of X to speak long strings of Mandarin to Y, since Y has no facility to parse or perceive X's utterances. Actually, unless there was a reason to speak in Mandarin (like, say, a Mandarin tutoring session), I'm usually of the opinion that one should stick to English (in the context of living in Canada). This sentiment is probably best captured by Emily Post in her book Etiquette (1920):
"Never interlard your conversation with foreign words or phrases when you can possibly translate them into English; and the occasions when our mother tongue will not serve are extremely rare."The reasoning behind it, at least from how I interpret it, is that when you're in a speech community in which everybody speaks English, but not everybody speaks Mandarin, any Mandarin utterances would alienate non-Mandarin speakers. And, after all, the goal of etiquette is largely the art of making all parties present to feel well at ease.
However, this rule is only solid in a non-lingual situation. Consider, for example, my personal situation in the German Club on campus. I'm fairly confident in my opinion that of all parties present, I probably have the weakest handle on the German language. And yet, it would be rather ridiculous to demand an English-only environment in a club that purportedly is for the German language [and culture].
So how would a socially responsible individual resolve such a conflict? I think it can be done in a combination of the following ways:
1. Speak slowly in the L2
That is, in a country that speaks X, and a club/society that speaks Y, language Y should be spoken slowly and clearly for the weaker students of Y. Why? Because those who are just beginning to study language Y, or who aren't as strong in Y will have more trouble parsing all the sounds in Y. Also, the speaker should be willing to repeat him/herself.
2. Offer translations in the L1
Which is to say, if there's an item in the L2 that's particularly idiomatic or culturally entrenched, it would do well to have an explanation handy. Again, weaker speakers of the second language will obviously have more trouble following the conversation or dialogue.
3. Be inviting
Suddenly switching into another language, even in a context-appropriate situation as a language club, can be rather isolating and alienating. It's important to make the weaker speakers feel more welcome. Afterall, we were all beginners at one point. Usually, I'd only start with insert words or phrases, to get the kids going (as in the Japanese culture club, where my language skills are markedly stronger than my German).
Does this mean that everybody involved in language learning has to be a specialist in SLA? No, not exactly. But I think that anybody who has been in a beginner SLA situation can relate to the feeling of being left out. Obviously there are two different responses that can be had -- some individuals react by vowing to learn the language better so that they can become the alienators. And of course, some clubs want to prune out the weaker speakers so that they can enjoy pure L2 conversation without having to worry about L1 explanations.
Unfortunately, that usually means reduced numbers in the club/society, and it also means a severely reduced scope of perspective. 'Sides, the more the merrier, right? Exclusivist clubs tend to die out, especially without an extraordinary amount of funding. So, the choice is yours! As for me, we'll see if I'm able to stick around in the German Club. Nobody's been making me feel particularly isolated, but on the other hand, the language barrier is clearly something to be overcome.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
German Club
Today I decided to check out the German Club on campus, at the email (and then a personal) invitation from the coordinator of the club. Although not too much was spoken auf Deutsch, we were given the opportunity to practise it via the ice-breaker game.
The game involved asking 20 questions, where we had to get others to help us figure out whose [famous person's] name was taped to our backs. It's a great way of practising simple questions: "Am I a wo/man? Am I living? Am I German? Am I young?" all these things are within the vocabulary of a German 101 course. And, I'm proud to say, I managed to use German where I could. Of course, those who actually spoke German were able to lose me in their conversation, but apparently, because I showed up to their club, I've gained immunity from their non-German speaking exclusion act.
Still, the act of being in an environment where German is spoken/expected to be spoken forced an active recall of that buried and dusty mental lexicon that had been relatively dormant for over 3 years. Beyond the basic conjugation table of "I am, [thou art,] s/he is, they are, etc." I really haven't accessed anything meatier, such as the crucial realm of die Verben. So all in all, it was a good linguistic revitalization. And I got to meet some interesting people to boot! Yay~
The game involved asking 20 questions, where we had to get others to help us figure out whose [famous person's] name was taped to our backs. It's a great way of practising simple questions: "Am I a wo/man? Am I living? Am I German? Am I young?" all these things are within the vocabulary of a German 101 course. And, I'm proud to say, I managed to use German where I could. Of course, those who actually spoke German were able to lose me in their conversation, but apparently, because I showed up to their club, I've gained immunity from their non-German speaking exclusion act.
Still, the act of being in an environment where German is spoken/expected to be spoken forced an active recall of that buried and dusty mental lexicon that had been relatively dormant for over 3 years. Beyond the basic conjugation table of "I am, [thou art,] s/he is, they are, etc." I really haven't accessed anything meatier, such as the crucial realm of die Verben. So all in all, it was a good linguistic revitalization. And I got to meet some interesting people to boot! Yay~
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
-Soever
"Whosoever pulleth out the sword from this stone is rightful king of all England."
The -soever class of words is a funny one, and apparently not one that I've been formally taught in school. (This includes my linguistics courses, and applied grammar courses. Either that or my memory for this specific phenomena fails me.)
Anyway, I was reading a comment on Hanzi Smatter:
Also, on a pedantic note, it should have been "a 'U'," at least, the way it's pronounced in English. And since the comment was written in English, I think that is sufficient enough to assume.
Meanwhile, it seems that the poster was a Chinese-speaking ESLer. And that gets me thinking about how one goes about teaching or observing patterns like that -- where certain words ("whatsoever") are used exclusively in a negative context. Even if it's explicitly taught in an EAP setting, is it effective, or just forgotten among the sea of other words. Ah, to look at the curriculum of an EAP class!
The -soever class of words is a funny one, and apparently not one that I've been formally taught in school. (This includes my linguistics courses, and applied grammar courses. Either that or my memory for this specific phenomena fails me.)
Anyway, I was reading a comment on Hanzi Smatter:
“The second character looked like an 'U' whatsoever.”This bugged me because I couldn't really understand what was being said. Why? Because whatsoever is always used in a negative sentence. Or is it? It is possible, afterall, that my experience with the word is a weird artifact of being raised by ESLers. So, I turn to the BNC (which is my new best friend in these matters), to look up the "random 50 solutions" of 943 found. All of them either had the key word "not" in them (i.e., negating the verb), the word "no" (negating a noun), or the adverb "nothing."
Also, on a pedantic note, it should have been "a 'U'," at least, the way it's pronounced in English. And since the comment was written in English, I think that is sufficient enough to assume.
Meanwhile, it seems that the poster was a Chinese-speaking ESLer. And that gets me thinking about how one goes about teaching or observing patterns like that -- where certain words ("whatsoever") are used exclusively in a negative context. Even if it's explicitly taught in an EAP setting, is it effective, or just forgotten among the sea of other words. Ah, to look at the curriculum of an EAP class!
Friday, December 26, 2008
Tags and Languages
My first topic for this post is more blog-related, basically that I've started implementing tags. I've seen them used in several other language/linguistics-related blogs, but some of them were so narrowly defined, I found it was ridiculous to even bother using them. So, I've decided to use some relatively broad categories, which will probably get narrower as I continue my study in linguistics. (I think my current working categories are: Typography, Orthography, SLA, Linguistics, Languages, Grammar ...?) In case you're wondering, typography refers to the design of type, while orthography refers to the writing system in general. (So, the difference between writing in English and Japanese is a question of orthography; the difference between Baskerville Old Face and Garamond is a matter of typography).
...and on to languages. the SLA tag will probably appear more and more, now that I'm in this new Applied Language Studies option in school. It's only an option; not even counted as a minor. But I already have one of those, so I guess it's okay... Anyway. From my studies and readings, I've been learning more and more about language development and bilingualism, which invariably leads me to recall past conversations with other non-professional linguists. More of my friends either speak a second language, or have studied at least two other languages apart from the official national language (English), which I suppose is considered pretty extraordinary, given that I don't live in Europe. Well, I suppose it could also say something about the number of friends I have, but... So, most of the people I end up talking to about language will invariably and almost definitely have their own experiences, memories, and opinions about language learning and bilingualism. Things like what it means to be "truly" bilingual, or what "fluency" means. Optimal age of learning a second language, and effects on cognitive development. And for the most part, these are lively and engaging discussions.
But as we know from psych 101 and courthouses, anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence. Everybody's experiences will be unique, and particularly more so because of the perceptual bias in interpreting one's own experiences. And that's fine. That in itself is an eye-opener, to see how others in similar situations would interpret things differently. But sometimes, I wish that some of the people I talk to would be more willing to go beyond their own experiences andjust accept mine look to some researched authority for a better understanding of the general phenomena of, say, bilingualism.
So, having personally been raising in a multilingual environment, I would class myself as a simultaneous bilingual. And on the whole, I'm fairly confident that my language development wasn't hindered or retarded by the presence of "contesting" languages vying for brain space. And, thankfully, the research seems to agree with me. Some of my former peers, however, labour under the misapprehension that the opposite is true. I suppose such myths must exist for all disciplines, but since the one I'm interested in is language, I tend to focus on that. So, popular myths relating to language include things like the CPH (Critical Period Hypothesis), which basically states that beyond a certain age (puberty, by most counts), individuals will be unable to master a second language. Others are the previously hinted bilingualism myth, that raising a child in a multilingual environment will slow that child's development or otherwise impair its cognitive skills. Yet another popular one is that there is such a thing as "perfection" in language, and therefore, that there also exists "corruption" of language, even though language is always in a fluid and dynamic state of change.
...and on to languages. the SLA tag will probably appear more and more, now that I'm in this new Applied Language Studies option in school. It's only an option; not even counted as a minor. But I already have one of those, so I guess it's okay... Anyway. From my studies and readings, I've been learning more and more about language development and bilingualism, which invariably leads me to recall past conversations with other non-professional linguists. More of my friends either speak a second language, or have studied at least two other languages apart from the official national language (English), which I suppose is considered pretty extraordinary, given that I don't live in Europe. Well, I suppose it could also say something about the number of friends I have, but... So, most of the people I end up talking to about language will invariably and almost definitely have their own experiences, memories, and opinions about language learning and bilingualism. Things like what it means to be "truly" bilingual, or what "fluency" means. Optimal age of learning a second language, and effects on cognitive development. And for the most part, these are lively and engaging discussions.
But as we know from psych 101 and courthouses, anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence. Everybody's experiences will be unique, and particularly more so because of the perceptual bias in interpreting one's own experiences. And that's fine. That in itself is an eye-opener, to see how others in similar situations would interpret things differently. But sometimes, I wish that some of the people I talk to would be more willing to go beyond their own experiences and
So, having personally been raising in a multilingual environment, I would class myself as a simultaneous bilingual. And on the whole, I'm fairly confident that my language development wasn't hindered or retarded by the presence of "contesting" languages vying for brain space. And, thankfully, the research seems to agree with me. Some of my former peers, however, labour under the misapprehension that the opposite is true. I suppose such myths must exist for all disciplines, but since the one I'm interested in is language, I tend to focus on that. So, popular myths relating to language include things like the CPH (Critical Period Hypothesis), which basically states that beyond a certain age (puberty, by most counts), individuals will be unable to master a second language. Others are the previously hinted bilingualism myth, that raising a child in a multilingual environment will slow that child's development or otherwise impair its cognitive skills. Yet another popular one is that there is such a thing as "perfection" in language, and therefore, that there also exists "corruption" of language, even though language is always in a fluid and dynamic state of change.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Adventure for Amazingly August Adjectives
Also, amorous assonance. *heart* Although I actually do enjoy the majuscule A from a typographical point of view (and therefore from a calligraphic view as well), it's strangely not my favourite letter of the alphabet. (Naturally, of course, this worldview changes when I'm getting letter grades on my essays and assignments. Then I want all A's, baby!) Anyway. I'm sitting in the reading room (or quiet study room) in the Student Life Centre on campus, trying to think up a slightly less homophilic title for a friend's photo album (working title: "Boys of Summer"), and this naturally led to the desire to form an adjective for "summer". Summery? summerly? summerian? The first two are actually words that pertain to summer, but it's still not what I wanted. And here is where OED fails again. I've mentioned it before, so I don't see the need to expand on it again. But basically, I needed to look elsewhere for a list of season-related adjectives. And thus, I chanced upon a site that offered them. And so, the four adjectives for the four seasons!
Yay! As any good poet or wordsmith knows, there are also adjectives that describe colours (which are already adjectives). That's why we have crimson, scarlet, vermilion and sanguine to describe 'red' without having to resort to fruits (unlike, say, "pomegranate red," or "lemon yellow," etc...) Personally, I think that resorting to precious gems is sorta pushing it as well (ie emerald green, ruby red, sapphire blue, etc.)
Just a quick post for now; more serious post to come soon! :D
- Spring = Vernal
- Summer = Estival
- Autumn = Autumnal
- Winter = Hibernal
Yay! As any good poet or wordsmith knows, there are also adjectives that describe colours (which are already adjectives). That's why we have crimson, scarlet, vermilion and sanguine to describe 'red' without having to resort to fruits (unlike, say, "pomegranate red," or "lemon yellow," etc...) Personally, I think that resorting to precious gems is sorta pushing it as well (ie emerald green, ruby red, sapphire blue, etc.)
Just a quick post for now; more serious post to come soon! :D
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)