I kind of talked about this in "#9. Creating New Words," but creation and change, though connected, are different.
The types of changes languages undergo are:
1) Lexical changes (word creation and extinction)
2) Phonetic and phonological changes (changes in pronunciation)
3) Spelling changes
4) Semantic changes (changes in meaning)
5) Syntactic change (changes in sentence structure)
As you can see, there's more to language change than just new words. So I decided on this topic for this post. :)
Alexandra left me a question on my post #9: Do you have any ideas as to why some languages (like English or Korean) might change so rapidly, while others stay relatively static?
She asked this because she had read an article about Icelandic speakers not having any trouble reading 14th-century texts because their language hasn't changed much. The National Science Foundation also says that Japanese has changed relatively little over 1,000 years, while English has evolved rapidly in just a few centuries.
So I'm curious about her questionm, too. I certainly don't have the correct answer to her question, but what I have researched might partly answer her question.
The consensus seems to be that languages change. That much is obvious to most people. Then, the question most people are probably curious about: WHY do languages change? Professor Chris Pontain at the University of London says this is "one of the big questions in modern linguistics which has still only received a partial and tentative answer."
In the 18th century, the theory was that language "decays" because people are lazy. The theory of the late 19th century was that language naturally changes little by little, and it isn't in our (humans') control. The recent theory advocated by American linguist William Labov is that because people are social animals, we influence each other, and language changes as a result. For example, if I start calling a pen "frindle" and my friends start calling it that too and it eventually spreads throughout the whole country. There are problems with all three of these theories, but the last one is the most believable one to me.
These are the general theories, and there are a lot of causes behind language change, too, such as colonization, new technologies, etc. I talked about some of this in my other post.
To try to answer Alexandra's question:
As for Icelandic, there is probably a correlation between Iceland's policy of linguistic purism. From early 19th century, Iceland has replaced "loanwords" with new words from Old Icelandic and Old Norse roots so that these foreign words don't infiltrate their language. North Korea has a similar policy, and thus, the Korean there is a lot different from the Korean we speak in South Korea. Korean was also influenced by the Japanese Occupation during World War II.
So, I think government policy and economic advancement have a lot to do with language change. However, further than that, I don't have enough information to determine why Icelandic or Japanese hasn't changed much while others have. But another interesting thing is that although English has changed a lot, apparently, our spelling of words hasn't changed much because it's usually maintained the same even if the pronunciation changes. This makes it easier for us to read literature from “the old days”, but because of other language changes, we still have problems understanding the literature.
So, I come again to the inevitable conclusion about language: we really can't know for sure. But it is still interesting to think about and develop our own theories.
Links:
http://www.ancientscripts.com/hl_why.html
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/~mlw058/languagechange.pdf
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/linguistics/change.jsp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism_in_Icelandic
http://library.thinkquest.org/18802/lang2.htm
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
#11. The English Craze
I've talked about the English craze in Korea before in this blog, but now I'm devoting a whole post to it. This inspiration comes from news about the Nova schools in Japan and the Korean presidential candidates' platforms regarding expansion of English education in Korea.
Recently, there was a crisis for many native English speakers in Japan. They lost their jobs because Nova, a popular English conversation school chain, filed for bankruptcy. The focus of this post is not on the crisis though, but how this news also reflects the English craze of Japan. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, "English-conversation schools are a big business in Japan. Millions of Japanese dream of speaking English. But the six years of language classes given in middle and high schools focus on grammar, not conversation, so few children learn to speak English well. The $3.5-billion-a-year foreign-language-education industry teems with more than 1,100 companies catering to about two million students, according to the Japan Association for the Promotion of Foreign Language Education."
The situation is more severe in Korea. The two major South Korean presidential candidates have recognized the obsession with English education in Korea and have drawn up plans to alleviate the costs and pressure following this craze.
Chung Dong-young of the United New Democratic Party (UNDP) pledged to open government-operated English-language schools in order to reduce educational expenses. According to Chung, the number of students going abroad to study English has increased by 2.6 times in the past five years. I myself can attest to this rapid increase of students studying abroad, as I am one of them. My high school, which has a study abroad program called "Global Leadership Program" has expanded continuously since it began in 1998 with four students. When I graduated, there were 78 GLP students in my class. There are over a hundred students in the class of 2008. There are also many more schools that are starting similar programs. This apparent English craze is not good for the Korean economy, and Chung said that his pledges will "create more jobs and solve the problem of families separated for English learning." Oh, yet another problem in Korea: fathers earn money to send their wives and children to English-speaking countries. They call these men "Giruhgi (Goose) Fathers." They are a group that many take pity on, since they have no family to return to at home and work just so that their children can learn English and have a more successful future.
Chung's opponent, Lee Myung-bak of the Grand National Party (GNP), proposed creating "an international zone, which would provide an English-only environment and autonomous education system like those of Singapore and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates." He also suggested more English classes in schools and more native speakers assisting in such classes. Citing that Koreans spend 1.4 trillion won ($15.5 billion) on English study, Lee promised to nurture 3,000 English teachers annually and post them in schools to cut educational expenses in half.
The Dean of Yonsei University, one of the most prestigious universities in Korea, said that he expected Korean colleges to expand the number of classes taught in English. According to Bloomberg.com, "In a recent poll by JobKorea, a recruitment website, 64 percent of the 1,075 South Koreans surveyed said they were stressed at work because they had insufficient English. Nearly a third, or 31 percent, said they were disadvantaged because of a lack of English proficiency, having failed to get a promotion or secure the posts they desired." Kim Hwa Soo, the CEO of JobKorea explained, "As companies focus on strengthening their global competitiveness, the ability to speak foreign languages is becoming an important factor at workplaces." According to the Korean Education Ministry, in the year ended on March 31, 2007, 52% of the 217,959 students who went abroad for university or higher level education went to the U.S., U.K., Australia and other English-speaking countries. Four years ago, 159,903 went abroad to study.
I think I've offered overly sufficient information to show how important Koreans regard learning English. Even just looking at the numbers for Stanford, you can tell how popular studying abroad is in Korea. For the Class of 2011, Korea had the most international students accepted to Stanford, 37, while number 2 and 3, Singapore and Canada, had 17 and 16 respectively (if I remember right). When I walk/bike around campus, I see Koreans and hear Korean every day. It's just crazy!
Anyway, I feel like I'm going off-topic here, but I'm sure that now you have a sense of this English craze I'm talking about.
It's probably not as intense as Korea, but English is taking over other countries in Asia, too. According to the Tehran Times, Khazaeifar, head of the English department at Ferdowsi University in Mashhad, Iran, said, “Persian is being gradually and deceptively eaten away by a relentless enemy named the English language." At a SPELT (Society for Promotion of English Language Teaching) conference currently being held in Karachi, Pakistan, a speaker, Mashood Rizvi, said that a project named "English for Life" has been launched in Sindh and Balochistan, and that the program will soon be expanded. In an opinion article by Nilanshu Agarwal in India, "English plays a very important role in education, business and administration. It is the medium of instruction for higher education-both academic and technological. Those who seek jobs in private companies or professions must be proficient in English. It is recognized as an official language for purposes of administration at the national level."
In 1607, only 3.5 million people spoke English in 1607, almost all of whom lived in the British Isles. It is estimated that 2 billion people worldwide will speak English by the end of this decade. According to Lord Alan Watson of Richmond CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire), English is joining Chinese, Hindi and Arabic as the most-used languages in the world. The difference is that for Chinese, Hindi and Arabic, it's because large numbers of people speak them as a first language. For English, it's because of the number who learn it as a second language. He also said that more people are learning English in China today than all of the North Americans who speak English and predicted that by 2030, the largest ethnic group in the world using English will be the Chinese.
So... what's the cause behind this proliferation of English?
Well, EVERYTHING is in English these days. Most of the studies in academic fields and the internet are in English. So, it's THE language to know.
But what if this is just a passing fad?
Well, I guess we can't know that for sure. But the increase of both the speed and amount of global communication will keep English from suffering the fate of Latin, which evolved into different languages in different places because people were isolated.
So, right now, I'm extremely glad I'm proficient in English. :)
Links:
Korea - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aO2v82_cJzF8&refer=asia
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2007/11/116_12858.html
Japan - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119394083023779349.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20071031TDY01301.htm
Iran - http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=155069
India - http://www.chowk.com/articles/12500
Pakistan - http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=78597
English is the global language - http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-11-01-0130.html
Recently, there was a crisis for many native English speakers in Japan. They lost their jobs because Nova, a popular English conversation school chain, filed for bankruptcy. The focus of this post is not on the crisis though, but how this news also reflects the English craze of Japan. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, "English-conversation schools are a big business in Japan. Millions of Japanese dream of speaking English. But the six years of language classes given in middle and high schools focus on grammar, not conversation, so few children learn to speak English well. The $3.5-billion-a-year foreign-language-education industry teems with more than 1,100 companies catering to about two million students, according to the Japan Association for the Promotion of Foreign Language Education."
The situation is more severe in Korea. The two major South Korean presidential candidates have recognized the obsession with English education in Korea and have drawn up plans to alleviate the costs and pressure following this craze.
Chung Dong-young of the United New Democratic Party (UNDP) pledged to open government-operated English-language schools in order to reduce educational expenses. According to Chung, the number of students going abroad to study English has increased by 2.6 times in the past five years. I myself can attest to this rapid increase of students studying abroad, as I am one of them. My high school, which has a study abroad program called "Global Leadership Program" has expanded continuously since it began in 1998 with four students. When I graduated, there were 78 GLP students in my class. There are over a hundred students in the class of 2008. There are also many more schools that are starting similar programs. This apparent English craze is not good for the Korean economy, and Chung said that his pledges will "create more jobs and solve the problem of families separated for English learning." Oh, yet another problem in Korea: fathers earn money to send their wives and children to English-speaking countries. They call these men "Giruhgi (Goose) Fathers." They are a group that many take pity on, since they have no family to return to at home and work just so that their children can learn English and have a more successful future.
Chung's opponent, Lee Myung-bak of the Grand National Party (GNP), proposed creating "an international zone, which would provide an English-only environment and autonomous education system like those of Singapore and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates." He also suggested more English classes in schools and more native speakers assisting in such classes. Citing that Koreans spend 1.4 trillion won ($15.5 billion) on English study, Lee promised to nurture 3,000 English teachers annually and post them in schools to cut educational expenses in half.
The Dean of Yonsei University, one of the most prestigious universities in Korea, said that he expected Korean colleges to expand the number of classes taught in English. According to Bloomberg.com, "In a recent poll by JobKorea, a recruitment website, 64 percent of the 1,075 South Koreans surveyed said they were stressed at work because they had insufficient English. Nearly a third, or 31 percent, said they were disadvantaged because of a lack of English proficiency, having failed to get a promotion or secure the posts they desired." Kim Hwa Soo, the CEO of JobKorea explained, "As companies focus on strengthening their global competitiveness, the ability to speak foreign languages is becoming an important factor at workplaces." According to the Korean Education Ministry, in the year ended on March 31, 2007, 52% of the 217,959 students who went abroad for university or higher level education went to the U.S., U.K., Australia and other English-speaking countries. Four years ago, 159,903 went abroad to study.
I think I've offered overly sufficient information to show how important Koreans regard learning English. Even just looking at the numbers for Stanford, you can tell how popular studying abroad is in Korea. For the Class of 2011, Korea had the most international students accepted to Stanford, 37, while number 2 and 3, Singapore and Canada, had 17 and 16 respectively (if I remember right). When I walk/bike around campus, I see Koreans and hear Korean every day. It's just crazy!
Anyway, I feel like I'm going off-topic here, but I'm sure that now you have a sense of this English craze I'm talking about.
It's probably not as intense as Korea, but English is taking over other countries in Asia, too. According to the Tehran Times, Khazaeifar, head of the English department at Ferdowsi University in Mashhad, Iran, said, “Persian is being gradually and deceptively eaten away by a relentless enemy named the English language." At a SPELT (Society for Promotion of English Language Teaching) conference currently being held in Karachi, Pakistan, a speaker, Mashood Rizvi, said that a project named "English for Life" has been launched in Sindh and Balochistan, and that the program will soon be expanded. In an opinion article by Nilanshu Agarwal in India, "English plays a very important role in education, business and administration. It is the medium of instruction for higher education-both academic and technological. Those who seek jobs in private companies or professions must be proficient in English. It is recognized as an official language for purposes of administration at the national level."
In 1607, only 3.5 million people spoke English in 1607, almost all of whom lived in the British Isles. It is estimated that 2 billion people worldwide will speak English by the end of this decade. According to Lord Alan Watson of Richmond CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire), English is joining Chinese, Hindi and Arabic as the most-used languages in the world. The difference is that for Chinese, Hindi and Arabic, it's because large numbers of people speak them as a first language. For English, it's because of the number who learn it as a second language. He also said that more people are learning English in China today than all of the North Americans who speak English and predicted that by 2030, the largest ethnic group in the world using English will be the Chinese.
So... what's the cause behind this proliferation of English?
Well, EVERYTHING is in English these days. Most of the studies in academic fields and the internet are in English. So, it's THE language to know.
But what if this is just a passing fad?
Well, I guess we can't know that for sure. But the increase of both the speed and amount of global communication will keep English from suffering the fate of Latin, which evolved into different languages in different places because people were isolated.
So, right now, I'm extremely glad I'm proficient in English. :)
Links:
Korea - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aO2v82_cJzF8&refer=asia
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2007/11/116_12858.html
Japan - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119394083023779349.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20071031TDY01301.htm
Iran - http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=155069
India - http://www.chowk.com/articles/12500
Pakistan - http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=78597
English is the global language - http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-11-01-0130.html
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
#10. Grammar and Learning Language
Why do we learn grammar? Is it essential to learning a language?
Based on my experience of learning and teaching grammar, it seems like a good supplement but not a necessity to learning language. We can get what we want to say across in ungrammatical sentences, and we can understand other people who speak "wrongly." However, for everyone to communicate in the most effective (and by this, I mean least ambiguous) way, there needs to be an established set of rules governing what people say and how they say it. Using correct grammar lessens misunderstandings and misinterpretations between people. So the question arises: can grammar only be acquired through formal learning or do we absorb grammar as we do words when we're young? And another question follows from this train of thought: is there more of a necessity to learn grammar when we're learning second languages?
We can acquire our first languages as babies without formally being taught grammar at all. The linguist Patrick Hartwell divided grammar into some categories. "Grammar 1 refers to the internalized set of linguistic patterns that convey meaning. Grammar involves rules of phonology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics that are all internalized, usually by the age of 5." In other words, Grammar 1 is the grammar that allows us as babies to construct meaningful phrases and that which we use unconsciously on a daily basis. "Grammar 2 deals with linguist’s attempts to describe and analyze formal language patterns." Both Grammar 1 & 2 are usually what linguists concern themselves with the most.
Chomsky expanded his original theory of an innate language acquisition device (LAD) to Universal Grammar, "a single grammatical system which is transmitted genetically and accounts for the ability of all normal humans to learn and speak their native language." According to Chomsky, Universal Grammar is what allows children to deduce the structure of their native languages from "mere exposure." I think this is what Hartwell would call Grammar 1.
So we don't need to be taught grammar when we're babies. So why do they make us study what nouns and verbs are in school? Apparently, educators cannot agree on their answer to this question. They've even called them the "Grammar Wars."
Hartwell's Grammar 3 and 4 are the types of grammar we learn in school. These are the established rules for "proper" writing and speaking. According to my limited research, instruction of grammar began with the Greeks. They weren't so strict about "correctness," though. Grammar had more to do with style. This evolved into an isolated instruction of prescribed rules. English teachers have believed that this system works well, but a New Zealand study conducted by Elley, Barham, Lamb, and Wyllie (1975) found that English grammar instruction had “virtually no influence on the language growth of typical secondary students.” Another study (Harris, 1962) found that five high school students who received two years of formal grammar instruction performed worse on a test about sentence complexity and surface errors than students who recieved no such education.
So, I didn't really find the answer to my question. I'm continuously finding out that language or linguistics is a difficult field to study. There are no real certain answers, only lots of speculation. So, here's my two cents:
From my experience as a semi-native speaker of English and Korean and a student of French as a second language, I think some grammar is innate and some has to be learned. The innate part is sufficient for simple communication. Babies can say "me want cookie" and parents can understand them just fine. We somehow acquire the basics of stringing words together to make sense. So as long as I know enough of the words in French, I can make crude sentences like a baby. Speakers of English as a second language often have trouble with putting "the"s and "a/an"s in the right places. They might say "After the graduation, I can get the job to earn the money," and even though it sounds awkward, we can understand what they're saying. But not perfectly. Hence, the need for rules. Knowing and employing perfect grammar doesn't make you a great writer or the most effective speaker, but it helps you express your thoughts the best way they can be expressed. So we should learn grammar, but not emphasize it so much that it clouds the more important skills, such as writing well and speaking persuasively.
http://www.msu.edu/user/patter90/grammar.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/conf/grammar.html
http://www.eslteachersboard.com/cgi-bin/articles/index.pl?noframes;read=984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003934.html
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/lang/gloss.php
Based on my experience of learning and teaching grammar, it seems like a good supplement but not a necessity to learning language. We can get what we want to say across in ungrammatical sentences, and we can understand other people who speak "wrongly." However, for everyone to communicate in the most effective (and by this, I mean least ambiguous) way, there needs to be an established set of rules governing what people say and how they say it. Using correct grammar lessens misunderstandings and misinterpretations between people. So the question arises: can grammar only be acquired through formal learning or do we absorb grammar as we do words when we're young? And another question follows from this train of thought: is there more of a necessity to learn grammar when we're learning second languages?
We can acquire our first languages as babies without formally being taught grammar at all. The linguist Patrick Hartwell divided grammar into some categories. "Grammar 1 refers to the internalized set of linguistic patterns that convey meaning. Grammar involves rules of phonology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics that are all internalized, usually by the age of 5." In other words, Grammar 1 is the grammar that allows us as babies to construct meaningful phrases and that which we use unconsciously on a daily basis. "Grammar 2 deals with linguist’s attempts to describe and analyze formal language patterns." Both Grammar 1 & 2 are usually what linguists concern themselves with the most.
Chomsky expanded his original theory of an innate language acquisition device (LAD) to Universal Grammar, "a single grammatical system which is transmitted genetically and accounts for the ability of all normal humans to learn and speak their native language." According to Chomsky, Universal Grammar is what allows children to deduce the structure of their native languages from "mere exposure." I think this is what Hartwell would call Grammar 1.
So we don't need to be taught grammar when we're babies. So why do they make us study what nouns and verbs are in school? Apparently, educators cannot agree on their answer to this question. They've even called them the "Grammar Wars."
Hartwell's Grammar 3 and 4 are the types of grammar we learn in school. These are the established rules for "proper" writing and speaking. According to my limited research, instruction of grammar began with the Greeks. They weren't so strict about "correctness," though. Grammar had more to do with style. This evolved into an isolated instruction of prescribed rules. English teachers have believed that this system works well, but a New Zealand study conducted by Elley, Barham, Lamb, and Wyllie (1975) found that English grammar instruction had “virtually no influence on the language growth of typical secondary students.” Another study (Harris, 1962) found that five high school students who received two years of formal grammar instruction performed worse on a test about sentence complexity and surface errors than students who recieved no such education.
So, I didn't really find the answer to my question. I'm continuously finding out that language or linguistics is a difficult field to study. There are no real certain answers, only lots of speculation. So, here's my two cents:
From my experience as a semi-native speaker of English and Korean and a student of French as a second language, I think some grammar is innate and some has to be learned. The innate part is sufficient for simple communication. Babies can say "me want cookie" and parents can understand them just fine. We somehow acquire the basics of stringing words together to make sense. So as long as I know enough of the words in French, I can make crude sentences like a baby. Speakers of English as a second language often have trouble with putting "the"s and "a/an"s in the right places. They might say "After the graduation, I can get the job to earn the money," and even though it sounds awkward, we can understand what they're saying. But not perfectly. Hence, the need for rules. Knowing and employing perfect grammar doesn't make you a great writer or the most effective speaker, but it helps you express your thoughts the best way they can be expressed. So we should learn grammar, but not emphasize it so much that it clouds the more important skills, such as writing well and speaking persuasively.
http://www.msu.edu/user/patter90/grammar.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/conf/grammar.html
http://www.eslteachersboard.com/cgi-bin/articles/index.pl?noframes;read=984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003934.html
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/lang/gloss.php
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
#9. Creating New Words
When I was in the third or fourth grade, I read a book called "Frindle," which I remember to this day because I really enjoyed it. The story is about a boy who replaces the word "pen" with the word "Frindle" because his English teacher told him words come from us. "Who says a dog is a dog? We do." This word spreads due to Nicholas (the boy) and his friends' efforts and eventually (when Nick is an adult) makes it into the dictionary. I loved this book because I found it fascinating that a kid could make something big like that happen (even though the book was fiction). So I always wanted to make a word of my own.
Making a word is easy and difficult at the same time, I think. Especially these days, once you create a word that is catchy, it's not that hard for it to suddenly breakout into common use. The internet has helped a lot. In Korea, there are so many new words being created and used by most young people that a TV program promoting the use of correct Korean words was created. This program is actually pretty good, because it brings back words that have kind of fallen out of use and also helps adults learn what the kids are saying these days. Most words are created by abbreviation, like "sel-ca" (a picture of you taken by yourself - "self camera") or "an-seup" (sad, like "It's sad that A is staying home on Friday night doing homework." - "an" from "angu," which means "eye," and "seup," from "seupgi," which means "vapor," meaning your eyes are watery). So for a person like me, who doesn't look at a lot of "popular" sites or play online games, which is where most of the neologisms are generated, it's hard to keep up with this newfangled language. I usually learn it pretty late, when all my friends start using it, but fortunately, I'm usually good at guessing the meanings of them.
There are many words popping up in the English language too. We "google" people, are supposed to avoid "sketchy" guys at Full Moon on the Quad, and "blog" about such new words. There's even a site that introduces new words that have come into the existence of our everyday lives: Word Spy.
Some words newly entered into the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in 2006 were spyware, supersize, ringtone, and drama queen. If you follow this link for the list, at the bottom you'll see a link for the new words in 1806, and it's pretty cool to see how commonly used many of them are now.
So with all these new words being incorporated into our everyday conversations, I had to disagree with Mr. Chomsky when I watched the YouTube video of Ali G's interview with Noam Chomsky, and Chomsky said to Ali that people would just ignore him if he made up a new word.
Well, now I've shown that it's obvious that words are created all the time, but how do they usually come about and how do they become "official" words?
Some methods that we most often use to create new words are:
1) Compounding - joining two or more morphemes together to make one word
ex) chairperson
2) Conversion - using a word from one part of speech in another part of speech
ex) eyeball; She's been eyeballing those shoes for weeks. (noun to verb)
3) Affixation - adding suffixes or prefixes to existing words
ex) deshopping; “to buy something intending to use it once, then return it for a refund”
4) Clipping - reducing longer words
ex) flu; from influenza
5) Blending/Truncating - mixing words together, using parts of them
ex) fanfic; fan and fiction
6) Acronyms
ex) imao; in my arrogant opinion (when I first saw this on Facebook, I had to google it)
7) Using brand names
ex) Xerox; copy
8) Borrowing words from other languages
ex)
AND MANY MORE OTHER WAYS!
And how are these newly created words entered into our dictionaries? Well, Merriam-Webster says they have editors that read a cross section of written material every day. They find new words or new usages of words and mark them. They collect these citations and enter it into their database. When they have sufficient citations (which shows wide usage) and a significant period of time has passed (which shows the longevity of the word), they add these words to their official dictionary!
In addition to words, we now have to decipher emoticons too. They add valuable information to written (or usually, typed) language, which has the disadvantage of not being able to see the person you're talking to or hear his/her intonation. I still don't know a lot of the emoticons used here because they're different from the ones in Korea. In Korea, ^^ or ^-^ is equivalent to :). (See the smiley eyes?) One I use often is -_- which is used when you're at a lost for words because what the other person said was stupid or made the situation awkward. I even use some of these emoticons when I write letters or notes by hand to my friends. When I think about how much language is evolving with the advancement of technology, I'm blown away sometimes.
We need new words for new things, like iPods. Sometimes words are ephemeral. They appear for a short time, usually describing or reflecting a cultural phenomenon, and then disappear.
Sometimes, we don't have words for certain things/emotions/situations. "The comedian Rich Hall gave us the word sniglet (an example of itself) for a word that should exist but does not. Eg, Elbonics n. The actions of two people manoeuvering for one arm-rest in a cinema." Babies make up words all the time, but they get lost as the babies grow up. My parents always told me how I used to call a watermelon (subak in Korean) "shabak." I'm sure we all have at least one of those. When I use Konglish, I say things like I'm "nora-ing" (playing), adding "-ing" to Korean verbs. People replace words that they can't think of with "whatchamacallits" and "thingys(thingies?)." And even though we don't use grammatically correct language, we understand each other just fine most of the time.
So why would Noam Chomsky say people would just brush Ali G off if he created a new word? Why can't there be a "frindle" in real life? I think he was just irritated by Ali and wanted to cut the interview short. Because language changes ALL THE TIME, and it's all OUR doing. So let's go out and create language!
http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/exp_lang/new_word.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article2474562.ece
http://www.m-w.com/help/faq/words_in.htm
http://meryl.net/2006/10/11/create-new-words-with-neologisms/
Making a word is easy and difficult at the same time, I think. Especially these days, once you create a word that is catchy, it's not that hard for it to suddenly breakout into common use. The internet has helped a lot. In Korea, there are so many new words being created and used by most young people that a TV program promoting the use of correct Korean words was created. This program is actually pretty good, because it brings back words that have kind of fallen out of use and also helps adults learn what the kids are saying these days. Most words are created by abbreviation, like "sel-ca" (a picture of you taken by yourself - "self camera") or "an-seup" (sad, like "It's sad that A is staying home on Friday night doing homework." - "an" from "angu," which means "eye," and "seup," from "seupgi," which means "vapor," meaning your eyes are watery). So for a person like me, who doesn't look at a lot of "popular" sites or play online games, which is where most of the neologisms are generated, it's hard to keep up with this newfangled language. I usually learn it pretty late, when all my friends start using it, but fortunately, I'm usually good at guessing the meanings of them.
There are many words popping up in the English language too. We "google" people, are supposed to avoid "sketchy" guys at Full Moon on the Quad, and "blog" about such new words. There's even a site that introduces new words that have come into the existence of our everyday lives: Word Spy.
Some words newly entered into the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in 2006 were spyware, supersize, ringtone, and drama queen. If you follow this link for the list, at the bottom you'll see a link for the new words in 1806, and it's pretty cool to see how commonly used many of them are now.
So with all these new words being incorporated into our everyday conversations, I had to disagree with Mr. Chomsky when I watched the YouTube video of Ali G's interview with Noam Chomsky, and Chomsky said to Ali that people would just ignore him if he made up a new word.
Well, now I've shown that it's obvious that words are created all the time, but how do they usually come about and how do they become "official" words?
Some methods that we most often use to create new words are:
1) Compounding - joining two or more morphemes together to make one word
ex) chairperson
2) Conversion - using a word from one part of speech in another part of speech
ex) eyeball; She's been eyeballing those shoes for weeks. (noun to verb)
3) Affixation - adding suffixes or prefixes to existing words
ex) deshopping; “to buy something intending to use it once, then return it for a refund”
4) Clipping - reducing longer words
ex) flu; from influenza
5) Blending/Truncating - mixing words together, using parts of them
ex) fanfic; fan and fiction
6) Acronyms
ex) imao; in my arrogant opinion (when I first saw this on Facebook, I had to google it)
7) Using brand names
ex) Xerox; copy
8) Borrowing words from other languages
ex)
AND MANY MORE OTHER WAYS!
And how are these newly created words entered into our dictionaries? Well, Merriam-Webster says they have editors that read a cross section of written material every day. They find new words or new usages of words and mark them. They collect these citations and enter it into their database. When they have sufficient citations (which shows wide usage) and a significant period of time has passed (which shows the longevity of the word), they add these words to their official dictionary!
In addition to words, we now have to decipher emoticons too. They add valuable information to written (or usually, typed) language, which has the disadvantage of not being able to see the person you're talking to or hear his/her intonation. I still don't know a lot of the emoticons used here because they're different from the ones in Korea. In Korea, ^^ or ^-^ is equivalent to :). (See the smiley eyes?) One I use often is -_- which is used when you're at a lost for words because what the other person said was stupid or made the situation awkward. I even use some of these emoticons when I write letters or notes by hand to my friends. When I think about how much language is evolving with the advancement of technology, I'm blown away sometimes.
We need new words for new things, like iPods. Sometimes words are ephemeral. They appear for a short time, usually describing or reflecting a cultural phenomenon, and then disappear.
Sometimes, we don't have words for certain things/emotions/situations. "The comedian Rich Hall gave us the word sniglet (an example of itself) for a word that should exist but does not. Eg, Elbonics n. The actions of two people manoeuvering for one arm-rest in a cinema." Babies make up words all the time, but they get lost as the babies grow up. My parents always told me how I used to call a watermelon (subak in Korean) "shabak." I'm sure we all have at least one of those. When I use Konglish, I say things like I'm "nora-ing" (playing), adding "-ing" to Korean verbs. People replace words that they can't think of with "whatchamacallits" and "thingys(thingies?)." And even though we don't use grammatically correct language, we understand each other just fine most of the time.
So why would Noam Chomsky say people would just brush Ali G off if he created a new word? Why can't there be a "frindle" in real life? I think he was just irritated by Ali and wanted to cut the interview short. Because language changes ALL THE TIME, and it's all OUR doing. So let's go out and create language!
http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/exp_lang/new_word.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article2474562.ece
http://www.m-w.com/help/faq/words_in.htm
http://meryl.net/2006/10/11/create-new-words-with-neologisms/
Monday, October 22, 2007
#8. Do We Have a Language Gene?
The reason humans dominate this world is probably due to language. This amazing ability we have to communicate with words, both written and spoken, has allowed us to advance society. We can do so much with language: acknowledge both tangible objects and abstract ideas, express our thoughts and emotions, provoke certain thoughts and emotions of other people, and build relationships with these people. It gives us such an advantage over other species. We are not destroyed by animals stronger and bigger than us because we have the ability to communicate intelligibly (well, maybe not ALL humans, such as our president). So why were we chosen to be this special group? How did we get so lucky?
Apparently, humans have a "language gene" that gives us the innate ability to communicate. This gene is called FOXP2 and was discovered in 2001 by researchers in England. This gene is needed during early embryonic development to correctly form neural pathways in brain regions associated with speech and language. The researchers studied a large family, identified as "KE," half of whom were affected with a serious language disorder. After studying this family, the researchers had narrowed the location of the FOXP2 gene to a region of chromosome 7 that contained about 70 genes. Trying to pinpoint one out of these 70 could have taken more than a year, but they got lucky when another researcher found a boy, who wasn't related to the KE family but had almost the same disability. This boy had a visible defect in chromosome 7 that specifically affected the FOXP2 gene.
However, this doesn't seem to be the whole story. As we know, the media leads us in a specific direction--sometimes the wrong one. So, when the FOXP2 gene was found, the media apparently went crazy and reported this discovery almost as the determining factor that sets us apart from other species, as I was talking about. But this FOXP2 gene isn't THE language gene, it's A language gene. The FOXP2 is a transcription factor, "a protein that binds to the promoter region of other genes and facilitates their transcription from DNA to RNA." This means that it can potentially affect a large number of genes. So it might not just be related only to language.
As I write this blog, I'm thinking that I have nowhere enough knowledge to decide what this all means and should ask our professor about it in class.
The article that lead me to write a blog on this topic was about a recent finding of the FOXP2 gene in Neanderthals. The Neanderthals are considered a species that has the same ancestors (chimpanzees) as humans but died out because they were less intelligent. However, this new discovery lends support to the argument that Neanderthals carried conversations, too. On the other end, "Dr. Simon Fisher, one of the scientists at Oxford University who discovered FOXP2, said: '...analysis of a single gene is not enough to resolve the big question of whether or not Neanderthals were capable of speech or for us to estimate what level of complexity their vocal communication could achieve.'"
Again, I don't know what this all means, but this is really interesting and I want to find out more about it.
Links:
Cavemen 'may have used language' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/20/nbrute120.xml
Scientists identify a language gene - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1004_TVlanguagegene.html
FOXP2 and the Evolution of Language - http://www.evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm
Apparently, humans have a "language gene" that gives us the innate ability to communicate. This gene is called FOXP2 and was discovered in 2001 by researchers in England. This gene is needed during early embryonic development to correctly form neural pathways in brain regions associated with speech and language. The researchers studied a large family, identified as "KE," half of whom were affected with a serious language disorder. After studying this family, the researchers had narrowed the location of the FOXP2 gene to a region of chromosome 7 that contained about 70 genes. Trying to pinpoint one out of these 70 could have taken more than a year, but they got lucky when another researcher found a boy, who wasn't related to the KE family but had almost the same disability. This boy had a visible defect in chromosome 7 that specifically affected the FOXP2 gene.
However, this doesn't seem to be the whole story. As we know, the media leads us in a specific direction--sometimes the wrong one. So, when the FOXP2 gene was found, the media apparently went crazy and reported this discovery almost as the determining factor that sets us apart from other species, as I was talking about. But this FOXP2 gene isn't THE language gene, it's A language gene. The FOXP2 is a transcription factor, "a protein that binds to the promoter region of other genes and facilitates their transcription from DNA to RNA." This means that it can potentially affect a large number of genes. So it might not just be related only to language.
As I write this blog, I'm thinking that I have nowhere enough knowledge to decide what this all means and should ask our professor about it in class.
The article that lead me to write a blog on this topic was about a recent finding of the FOXP2 gene in Neanderthals. The Neanderthals are considered a species that has the same ancestors (chimpanzees) as humans but died out because they were less intelligent. However, this new discovery lends support to the argument that Neanderthals carried conversations, too. On the other end, "Dr. Simon Fisher, one of the scientists at Oxford University who discovered FOXP2, said: '...analysis of a single gene is not enough to resolve the big question of whether or not Neanderthals were capable of speech or for us to estimate what level of complexity their vocal communication could achieve.'"
Again, I don't know what this all means, but this is really interesting and I want to find out more about it.
Links:
Cavemen 'may have used language' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/20/nbrute120.xml
Scientists identify a language gene - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1004_TVlanguagegene.html
FOXP2 and the Evolution of Language - http://www.evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm
Thursday, October 18, 2007
#7. Speaking vs. Writing
Do we write more eloquently or speak more eloquently?
I think I write much better than I speak, because I can organize my thoughts and express them in the best way possible. Although speaking has the benefits of conveniency and instant feedback, I've always preferred writing when I need to say something important. The chances of making a mistake, such as hurting someone's feelings or messing up grammar/vocabulary and looking stupid, are much lower. I can also write things that are difficult to vocalize. That's why I think I become much more truthful when I write. I'm not saying that I lie all the time when I speak, but I think I reveal more on paper. My friends have always told me that they enjoy my letters because they can feel my sincerity. So naturally, I became curious why it seems easier to speak than to write.
A book called Um . . . : Slips, Stumbles, Verbal Blunders and What They Mean by Michael Erard explains this somewhat. There are two types of speech blunders, according to the author: slips of the tongue and "speech disfluencies." "Slip-ups happen because we're thinking way ahead of what comes out of our mouths. We make what another linguist, Rudolf Meringer, once called 'forward errors.'" That's why we sometimes say things like "Glab that glass." We're thinking about the "gl" sound too fast. "Disfluencies" refer to lack of eloquence. Only a few very gifted people can speak without making mistakes or hesistating. The rest of us normal people have to fill our momentary gaps of ineloquence with "um"s and "er"s or "you know"s and "like"s.
According to my limited research, speaking and writing is thought of as very different things. Speaking is natural to human beings. That's why we speak before we can write. But writing is not. That's why we have to LEARN to write and why not all languages have alphabets or an equivalent. Speaking and writing cannot be but different because they are used in different contexts. People usually speak when 1) in close proximity; 2) they need to see the reaction of the listener(s) to go on; 3) the intonation of the sentences are important; 4) the situation is informal; etc. People usually write when 1) they are not at a distance to have a conversation; 2) they have to leave tangible records, such as contracts; 3) they need to organize all their thoughts clearly and convey them to someone else; etc. However, these distinctions are not absolute. They are often blurred, especially with the advancement of technology like the telephone and e-mail. We use emoticons to make writing more like speaking, in which gestures and facial expressions can be involved. We write speeches and present them orally to be more effective in reaching an audience.
This is all probably obvious information, but it's interesting that I think I can write better when actually, speaking is supposed to be easier (in terms of innate ability). It's also interesting that the two are treated as separate functions, but they overlap increasingly.
According to Wikipedia, "most contemporary linguists work under the assumption that spoken language is more fundamental, and thus more important to study, than written language." I don't know if I agree with this; for me, written language is just as important, if not more, than spoken language.
Links:
http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2007-10-16-voa25.cfm
http://www.garlikov.com/talkwrite.htm
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/verblang.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics#Speech_versus_writing
http://www.pearsonlongman.com/dictionaries/pdfs/Speaking-Writing-Crystal.pdf
http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/eic/learning-skills/literacy/sp_vs_writ_dif.shtml
I think I write much better than I speak, because I can organize my thoughts and express them in the best way possible. Although speaking has the benefits of conveniency and instant feedback, I've always preferred writing when I need to say something important. The chances of making a mistake, such as hurting someone's feelings or messing up grammar/vocabulary and looking stupid, are much lower. I can also write things that are difficult to vocalize. That's why I think I become much more truthful when I write. I'm not saying that I lie all the time when I speak, but I think I reveal more on paper. My friends have always told me that they enjoy my letters because they can feel my sincerity. So naturally, I became curious why it seems easier to speak than to write.
A book called Um . . . : Slips, Stumbles, Verbal Blunders and What They Mean by Michael Erard explains this somewhat. There are two types of speech blunders, according to the author: slips of the tongue and "speech disfluencies." "Slip-ups happen because we're thinking way ahead of what comes out of our mouths. We make what another linguist, Rudolf Meringer, once called 'forward errors.'" That's why we sometimes say things like "Glab that glass." We're thinking about the "gl" sound too fast. "Disfluencies" refer to lack of eloquence. Only a few very gifted people can speak without making mistakes or hesistating. The rest of us normal people have to fill our momentary gaps of ineloquence with "um"s and "er"s or "you know"s and "like"s.
According to my limited research, speaking and writing is thought of as very different things. Speaking is natural to human beings. That's why we speak before we can write. But writing is not. That's why we have to LEARN to write and why not all languages have alphabets or an equivalent. Speaking and writing cannot be but different because they are used in different contexts. People usually speak when 1) in close proximity; 2) they need to see the reaction of the listener(s) to go on; 3) the intonation of the sentences are important; 4) the situation is informal; etc. People usually write when 1) they are not at a distance to have a conversation; 2) they have to leave tangible records, such as contracts; 3) they need to organize all their thoughts clearly and convey them to someone else; etc. However, these distinctions are not absolute. They are often blurred, especially with the advancement of technology like the telephone and e-mail. We use emoticons to make writing more like speaking, in which gestures and facial expressions can be involved. We write speeches and present them orally to be more effective in reaching an audience.
This is all probably obvious information, but it's interesting that I think I can write better when actually, speaking is supposed to be easier (in terms of innate ability). It's also interesting that the two are treated as separate functions, but they overlap increasingly.
According to Wikipedia, "most contemporary linguists work under the assumption that spoken language is more fundamental, and thus more important to study, than written language." I don't know if I agree with this; for me, written language is just as important, if not more, than spoken language.
Links:
http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2007-10-16-voa25.cfm
http://www.garlikov.com/talkwrite.htm
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/verblang.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics#Speech_versus_writing
http://www.pearsonlongman.com/dictionaries/pdfs/Speaking-Writing-Crystal.pdf
http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/eic/learning-skills/literacy/sp_vs_writ_dif.shtml
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
#6. Pardon My French
Swear words are a natural part of our adult (probably even younger) vocabulary. Not everybody uses them, but they aren't foreign to most people.
I was curious about when we usually learn swear words, so I googled it and also thought about when I learned "bad words." According to experts, "using foul language is a normal part of pre-adolescent development. Children swear in order to appear sophisticated in front of their friends and to shock their parents; it's a way to test limits and be 'bad' without really being bad" (family.com, full link below). On another site, a parent expresses his concern about his three-year old's newly acquired "ability" to curse. This site also seems to explain that it's a natural part of children growing up and learning language. Apparently, most kids eventually grow out of this and use the language that they are taught is appropriate. However, many seem to grow back into this habit when they hit their teenage years.
I remember when I went back to Korea in 6th grade after spending all of my elementary school years in the U.S. Kids hadn't really started swearing yet in the U.S. (at least where I lived). When I went to Korea, I was shocked by the extent to which swear words were incorporated into the everyday language of my peers. I think I sensed that they were bad even though I didn't know what they meant at first. But I remember asking my mom what "gu-ra" meant after about a week in school, and she kind of laughed and responded that it was a vulgar term for a "lie" and that I shouldn't use it. That was one of the weaker swear words though, which is why I thought it was safe to ask my mom about it. I don't really know when kids here start using foul words in everyday language, but in Korea, so many kids use "ssi-bal" and "jot(-na)" (roughly equivalents of "fuck"--not in meaning but in the way it is used and the force of it) in practically every sentence from elementary school that even though adults still find it very unpleasant, it's natural. It's also very contagious. Although I didn't want to use such language, I found that sometimes they just naturally came to the tip of my tongue because so many people around me did. In Korea, the starting-to-swear age seems to be getting even lower and lower. You see these little first-grade, second-grade kids use about four swear words in one sentence, and it's scary. They have these sweet little faces, and yet, they talk like gangsters.
But no matter how "natural" a part of our language they are, swear words still carry a feeling of vulgarity and provoke certain emotions. Otherwise, we wouldn't use them as much. They give a sense of thrill to the speaker. Steven Pinker explains the scientific reason behind this in his article "What the F***? Why We Curse:" "Curses provoke a different response than their synonyms in part because connotations and denotations are stored in different parts of the brain...it seems likely that words' denotations are concentrated in the neocortex, especially in the left hemisphere, whereas their connotations are spread across connections between the neocortex and the limbic system, especially in the right hemisphere. A likely suspect within the limbic system is the amygdala, an almond-shaped organ buried at the front of the temporal lobe of the brain (one on each side) that helps invest memories with emotion. In humans, the amygdala "lights up"--it shows greater metabolic activity in brain scans--when the person sees an angry face or an unpleasant word, especially a taboo word." This reaction is apparently also involuntary. "Once a word is seen or heard, we reflexively look it up in memory and respond to its meaning, including its connotation." A demonstration of this is the Stroop effect: people find it easier to read the word "red" when it is written in the color red than in a different color like blue. So for swear words, because of "the automatic nature of speech perception, an expletive kidnaps our attention and forces us to consider its unpleasant connotations."
However, some swear words' powers do decrease. Years ago when religion was more influential in the everday lives of Americans, "hell" and "damn" were extremely bad words. Now, due to secularization, they do not have the same force as they used to, and instead have been replaced by words like "fuck" and "shit." Pinker goes onto explain why we have chosen words that are synonyms of body parts or its excretions. I won't go into this here, but it is interesting to read. (Follow the link!)
It's funny that certain words can carry so much emotion and meaning behind it and provoke such strong responses. Television and movies can use this to their advantage to get more viewers. Even broadcast TV try to work around FCC regulations by using substitute profanities like "frak" on "Battlestar Galactica." (I don't watch this show, so I don't know exactly how this word is used.) The industry says they need such words to create a more realistic sense of the characters. For example, you can't have lawyers and tabloid journalists using only perfectly acceptable language.
What words people use say a lot about who they are. We go to lengths to avoid saying certain words because of how we'll be perceived if we use them. We have to consider the effects our language will cause. People and companies have to pay huge sums of money because of one word. Stars get written off the script because they used a certain word to a co-star. Fights are started in bars, sports games, school, etc. because of a single word. At times, it seems ridiculous almost. But it's all because language has power. Lots of it.
Links:
[Steven Pinker's article] http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20071008&s=pinker100807&c=2
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/ny-etcrudetv1015,0,2643366.story
http://parenting.ivillage.com/tp/tpbehavior/0,,4898,00.html
http://family.go.com/parentpedia/school-age/behavior/children-foul-language-vulgarity/
[something funny] http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/fucking-and-the.html
I was curious about when we usually learn swear words, so I googled it and also thought about when I learned "bad words." According to experts, "using foul language is a normal part of pre-adolescent development. Children swear in order to appear sophisticated in front of their friends and to shock their parents; it's a way to test limits and be 'bad' without really being bad" (family.com, full link below). On another site, a parent expresses his concern about his three-year old's newly acquired "ability" to curse. This site also seems to explain that it's a natural part of children growing up and learning language. Apparently, most kids eventually grow out of this and use the language that they are taught is appropriate. However, many seem to grow back into this habit when they hit their teenage years.
I remember when I went back to Korea in 6th grade after spending all of my elementary school years in the U.S. Kids hadn't really started swearing yet in the U.S. (at least where I lived). When I went to Korea, I was shocked by the extent to which swear words were incorporated into the everyday language of my peers. I think I sensed that they were bad even though I didn't know what they meant at first. But I remember asking my mom what "gu-ra" meant after about a week in school, and she kind of laughed and responded that it was a vulgar term for a "lie" and that I shouldn't use it. That was one of the weaker swear words though, which is why I thought it was safe to ask my mom about it. I don't really know when kids here start using foul words in everyday language, but in Korea, so many kids use "ssi-bal" and "jot(-na)" (roughly equivalents of "fuck"--not in meaning but in the way it is used and the force of it) in practically every sentence from elementary school that even though adults still find it very unpleasant, it's natural. It's also very contagious. Although I didn't want to use such language, I found that sometimes they just naturally came to the tip of my tongue because so many people around me did. In Korea, the starting-to-swear age seems to be getting even lower and lower. You see these little first-grade, second-grade kids use about four swear words in one sentence, and it's scary. They have these sweet little faces, and yet, they talk like gangsters.
But no matter how "natural" a part of our language they are, swear words still carry a feeling of vulgarity and provoke certain emotions. Otherwise, we wouldn't use them as much. They give a sense of thrill to the speaker. Steven Pinker explains the scientific reason behind this in his article "What the F***? Why We Curse:" "Curses provoke a different response than their synonyms in part because connotations and denotations are stored in different parts of the brain...it seems likely that words' denotations are concentrated in the neocortex, especially in the left hemisphere, whereas their connotations are spread across connections between the neocortex and the limbic system, especially in the right hemisphere. A likely suspect within the limbic system is the amygdala, an almond-shaped organ buried at the front of the temporal lobe of the brain (one on each side) that helps invest memories with emotion. In humans, the amygdala "lights up"--it shows greater metabolic activity in brain scans--when the person sees an angry face or an unpleasant word, especially a taboo word." This reaction is apparently also involuntary. "Once a word is seen or heard, we reflexively look it up in memory and respond to its meaning, including its connotation." A demonstration of this is the Stroop effect: people find it easier to read the word "red" when it is written in the color red than in a different color like blue. So for swear words, because of "the automatic nature of speech perception, an expletive kidnaps our attention and forces us to consider its unpleasant connotations."
However, some swear words' powers do decrease. Years ago when religion was more influential in the everday lives of Americans, "hell" and "damn" were extremely bad words. Now, due to secularization, they do not have the same force as they used to, and instead have been replaced by words like "fuck" and "shit." Pinker goes onto explain why we have chosen words that are synonyms of body parts or its excretions. I won't go into this here, but it is interesting to read. (Follow the link!)
It's funny that certain words can carry so much emotion and meaning behind it and provoke such strong responses. Television and movies can use this to their advantage to get more viewers. Even broadcast TV try to work around FCC regulations by using substitute profanities like "frak" on "Battlestar Galactica." (I don't watch this show, so I don't know exactly how this word is used.) The industry says they need such words to create a more realistic sense of the characters. For example, you can't have lawyers and tabloid journalists using only perfectly acceptable language.
What words people use say a lot about who they are. We go to lengths to avoid saying certain words because of how we'll be perceived if we use them. We have to consider the effects our language will cause. People and companies have to pay huge sums of money because of one word. Stars get written off the script because they used a certain word to a co-star. Fights are started in bars, sports games, school, etc. because of a single word. At times, it seems ridiculous almost. But it's all because language has power. Lots of it.
Links:
[Steven Pinker's article] http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20071008&s=pinker100807&c=2
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/ny-etcrudetv1015,0,2643366.story
http://parenting.ivillage.com/tp/tpbehavior/0,,4898,00.html
http://family.go.com/parentpedia/school-age/behavior/children-foul-language-vulgarity/
[something funny] http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/fucking-and-the.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
