Final Paper Topic

The Hebrew Revival

Languages are becoming extinct at an alarming rate. Because of technological advances, there is increased contact among all parts of the world. This results in a need for a common language that can be understood by all. And English has been one of the main lingua francas that have filled this role. Yet language means more to most cultures than just a means of communication. A language can contain elements of culture that sometimes cannot be imparted through any other method. Therefore, the death of a language can be intensely personal to some tribes and cultures, especially those that are desperately clinging to their language as a symbol as they fight against the extinction of their way of life. There has been a surprising trend of people groups protesting assimilation by clinging to their language. Not only is there more awareness about dying languages, but some groups have tried to reintroduce their dead languages back into daily usage. One Native American tribe even tried to take fragments of their written language and compose a spoken language from those artifacts. For all of these attempts, there have not been very many real success stories to inspire others. But there is one. The Hebrew language was, by many definitions, dead, as it was not spoken in any meaningful, real world settings, and had only a written form still in use. However, it is now the national language of Israel and continues to thrive with hundreds of thousands of native speakers.

The story of the revival of the Hebrew language is characterized by unique situations that contributed immensely to its final enculturation. Its revival and use were predicated on the importance of faith in Jewish life and on the intense desire to achieve a real national identity in Israel. In addition, one motivated individual was willing to spearhead efforts to change the status of Hebrew in Israeli life. Basically, the circumstances surrounding this revival were extraordinary and, therefore, it is a difficult model to follow for any other group wishing to revive its dead language.

In my final paper, I will talk about the history of the revival of Hebrew and discuss why it was so successful. In doing so, it will become apparent why this case is so unique and why other groups cannot use it as a model. Then I will go on to explain the vital importance Hebrew has had on the country of Israel in unifying many disparate peoples and in creating a fierce sense of nationalism in Israel. Finally I will discuss the challenges that immigrants face when coming to a country that is dominated by the Hebrew language, a language they probably have never had to speak before in their lives. This difficulty can be either an obstacle making it more difficult to feel at home in Israel or a rite of passage tying the new immigrant to Israel irrevocably.

The debate over language in the school system

In Arizona, the state with the most stringent immigration laws, officials are now clamping down on teachers who have heavy accents. It is mandatory for all teachers in the state now to pass an English fluency test. And those who fail this test or who have heavy accents are temporarily reassigned. In 2000, a referendum was passed that dictated that public schools were only allowed to teach English classes in English. Then in 2003, the No Child Left Behind policy reinforced this notion as it only provided federal funding to schools that had an English teacher who was fully fluent in the English language. Tom Home, the superintendent of public schools, defends this policy by saying "It's my jobs to make sure they're taught English in the most rigorous, possible way so they can learn English quickly, can compete with their peers, and succeed academically.” However, while on the surface this policy seems to be reasonable, I doubt that it is truly having the best effect on students. In a time of economic crisis with education budgets plummeting, the allocation of resources to weeding out teachers who do not speak English fluently seems wasteful.

While the standard of having a teacher fluent in English teach English seems to be an acceptable decision, it is not a comprehensive way to screen for high quality teachers. This policy assumes that teachers who are not fluent in English aren’t good enough to be teaching English. But this is not the case for every single English teacher in every single school. Spanish speakers might be able to connect better and learn better from a Spanish speaker who obviously would have an accent. That shared link between immigrant students can sometimes be necessary to learn a second language better. Roughly 150,000 out of 1.2 million students in Arizona schools are learning English as a second language. This policy is discounting not a small minority of students. By standardizing all schools, Home is making the decision that every single child will learn English better from a fluent English speaker, which may not be the case in all scenarios. And furthermore, to be spending large amounts of money on this cause seems wasteful. Instead of controlling a variable such as language fluency, perhaps more effort should be placed on the quality of the teachers allowed to teach in public schools. This is much more important because it is the quality of the teacher that truly correlates with success. If there is a trend between teachers who aren’t fluent in English and their negative abilities to teach, then these efforts would be justified. However, if not, then Home is depriving some students of better opportunities to connect and understand English from a fellow Spanish speaker. In addition, where are these teachers being relocated to? Are they still being paid by the state even though they are not working at a public school? Also, what is the definition of a heavy accent? To what extent do speakers qualify as having too heavy of an accent to be a competent teacher? This policy raises many more questions than it truly answers. While on the surface this seems to be a helpful policy, I think it could actually be extremely detrimental to a large sector of children in Arizona.

The Acrobatic Balancing Act of Advertisement

As language becomes increasingly informal - off-color language pervading the normal lexicon, slang becoming the prevalent method of speech – even advertisements have started to reflect this shift. Slogans are more provocative than they have ever been before. There are even some TV shows that have profanity in their titles!! This is a trend that would have scandalized the entire population 40 years ago. However, with the advent of the Internet, more informal and colloquial language has become acceptable across many fields. Yet advertisers walk on a tight rope between pleasing the younger consumers and alienating the older ones.

Advertising execs defend their choice of language as trying to stay current with the times. They say that by using this informal language it makes the customer feel as though a friend is recommending a product. The more frank and understandable the ad is, the more effective it is. However, this only works for very specific groups of the population. The advertisements containing vulgar words are normally targeted at younger populations who will appreciate, understand, and not be offended by the word usage. For example, the television show “Dance Your Ass Off” is normally watched by young women (18-30 years old) who have a sense of humor about the name. However, the advertisement companies still don’t want to offend the older generation. "Ass" has not been commonly accepted as polite vernacular. Instead, words such as “derriere” or “buttocks” were used in its place. Therefore, the show is advertised with the logo “Dance Your A** Off”. The explicative is merely implied instead of stated, a concession intended to make it somewhat more palatable to the older and more sensitive consumer. Even the general manager of Oxygen (the TV channel which airs Dance Your Ass Off) acknowledges “The title is a little bit controversial. In cable anything that is successful is usually a little polarizing.” However, this is a recurring problem with current advertisements. The gap between the generations is extremely pronounced when it comes to issues about language – especially in terms of sensibility in language. And because advertising is a distinctly public manifestation of this trend, there is normally conflict in this field.

Advertisers normally blame the shift to coarse language on changes in the public sphere or on the advent of the Internet. The Internet is more utilized by younger generations, so advertising accurately reflects this tendency. The Internet is a public sphere in which advertisers are allowed more freedom than, for example, on television. There are varying standards of what is acceptable on the Internet. Therefore, it is a good medium through which advertisers can be a bit more daring. There are still glaring inconsistencies between what is acceptable in various spheres of public life. Standards on television are very different from those on the Internet. This leads to some difficulty for advertisers trying to create slogans that work for both Internet and TV. How to define appropriate language will always be debated by the generations because each age group believes the phrases and words it used growing up should be the norm for society.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/business/media/14adco.html?src=busln

Translation in the Legal System

Translation problems are becoming increasingly common in the United States today. With all of the various languages spoken in the US, it is inevitable that it will not be possible for everyone to communicate with each other. However, normally these problems result in the mild annoyance of a customer with a cashier or of a citizen with a ticketing police officer, for example. Yet, in some cases the barrier to communication between two languages can have much deeper effects. For instance, when a doctor cannot understand his patient, his diagnosis is based on a third person’s account of the patient’s symptoms. When this direct link of language is severed, it is much more difficult to develop personal connections.

A dramatic example of the far-reaching consequences of the language barrier is captured in a recent news article from Arizona News. In Phoenix, a Nigerian couple arrested for child abuse was released from jail because they cannot understand English. This couple was put in police custody after the gang rape of their 8-year-old daughter. She is a Nigerian refugee and was allegedly raped by four other young Nigerians. In addition, the parents are accused of leaving their daughter to beg for food at night and they hit her repeatedly with their fists or with crueler objects, such as barbed wire. The two were arrested and jailed on charges of abuse. However, the judge decided that the trial could not continue because the couple does not understand the proceedings. Instead, he decided to release the parents from jail until an interpreter can be found. Their passports were taken away from them, but they were still allowed to go home and be in contact with their other children.

There isn’t a simple answer to a situation such as this one. The parents have the right to understand why they are being held in jail and what charges are being leveled against them. Simply placing a person in jail when he has no idea what he did is a crime in itself. However, allowing a prisoner to be free solely because he can’t speak English doesn’t seem quite fair either. The judge in this case obviously thought that the individual liberties and freedoms of the accused parents were more important thanthe risk that they posed to society. It is a very difficult decision and would probably vary from judge to judge. This judge decided to postpone the trial until the court finds an interpreter. That is an equitable solution because then these parents can understand why they are being arrested. However, there are over 500 languages spoken in Nigeria and finding an interpreter for the specific dialect of the accused parents seems to be a daunting task. Hopefully, an interpreter can be found quickly so that the trial can continue. However, there is still the possibility of some inequities and misunderstandings when the trial is based solely on an interpreter's comments. There will undoubtedly be some distrust on both sides because neither the Nigerian couple nor the judge will be able to fully understand one another.

In addition, the article has some inconsistencies and some unanswered questions. It reported that last summer the father told a television station that his daughter was fine. They had a doctor examine her and the doctor affirmed that nothing had happened to her. How was the Nigerian father able to communicate with news stations a year ago but suddenly is unable to speak any English in court? The author does not mention the source of this information, which makes it seem a bit suspect as well. Perhaps the Nigerian couple can speak a little bit of English – more than was mentioned in the article or by the judge. This is especially suspicious since English is the official language of Nigeria.

How can the justice system possibly be completely fair in a situation such as this? There are no perfect answers to the complicated issues raised by needing translators in courts. The US justice system was designed with the assumption that the only language used would be English. However, as there is more and more overlapping of cultures and languages in the United States, problems such as these will need to be addressed with as much fairness as possible.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Parents-of-Liberian-rape-victim-set-free-due-to-language-barrier-93473499.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Nigeria

When Language Goes Wrong

Language disorders are extremely prevalent in society today, and they can significantly impact social participation. Language is the tool through which humans can communicate to each other about their emotions and other aspects of life. Therefore, when an individual has an impairment in this important cognitive function, it impacts numerous areas of his or her life. I am in a hum bio lecture series class that explores different childhood disabilities. This week, we heard Heidi Feldman speak about different language disabilities. We did not go into as much depth as I would have liked because the class only lasted 50 minutes, however I did glean some very important insights into the world of language disorders.

Children learn to speak and understand languages at very young ages. By 6 months of age, children are able to recognize their own name and babble continuously. At 1 year, children should be able to follow simple commands with gestures and should be able to say mama or dada specifically. This is also the time when their first words appear. At around 2 years of age their vocabulary should exceed 50 words. Language learning is based on observation and social interaction. There is no direct instruction as most children learn best from their environment. Therefore, if the environment is not inherently stimulus-rich, children are automatically at a disadvantage.This is why more language disorders are found in children from lower socioeconomic status. They have less language in their environment, which leads to being less competent.

Language skills are broken up into various sub sections. Receptive/Expressive language consists of phonology sounds (rules), morpho-syntax (grammar), semantics (meanings), and pragmatics (social functions). Speech itself consists of fluency, voice and resonance, speech sounds, which are made up of articulation, coordination of breath and movements, and motor planning. Therefore, there are many different areas that can be subject to disorders.

Developmental delay is one of the key signs that a language disorder might be present in a child. A delay is normally identified when a child at 24 months does not meet the criteria of having 50 words available in his/her vocabulary as well as having the ability to produce 2 word phrases. Half of all children delayed at 2 remain delayed at 3-4 years. However, a delay does not qualify as a disorder unless one of three criteria are met. Either the delays during the preschool era are severe, mild to moderate delays are still present at school age, or delays are identified that limit age appropriate functioning in learning, communication and social skills.

At this time, the causes of language delays are still unknown. Isolated language disorders suggest genetic contributions, but environmental causes may be equally important. There are some cases of normal speech delay that parents should understand and not worry about. Boys are normally slightly more delayed than girls in speech development. In addition, children from bilingual households may show mild delay and mixing. They have many more words to choose from in their vocabulary and so understandably sometimes they can confuse one language with the other. Also, ear infections are sometimes associated with delays. This problem is much easier to address than an actual language disorder.

The most important goal of treating language disorders is to diagnosis them early. One-on-one therapy can be extremely effective, but it is much easier when the child is still relatively young. Some language learning is possible even in children with severe levels of intellectual disability. However, the child’s long-term prognosis depends on the severity of the underlying disorder. Because most language disorders are treatable, children with language disorders should be taken to specialists as soon as possible. As language is the key to the human experience, a lack of communication skills deprives children of the ability to experience life to the fullest.

The implications of the word “minority”

Rarely do we as a society consider the implications that certain labels have on groups. Derogatory words are accepted as conversational vernacular despite the negative impact they can have. The use of “that’s so gay” is a new example that has emerged from the younger generation. This aligns all things negative with a homosexual orientation. Even though many attempts have been made to eradicate it from every day usage, it is still present despite its hurtful connotations. Another example of a negative word usage that has been around much longer than “gay” and has been questioned much less frequently is the label of “minority.” Skywalker Payne argues in his article “Time to Change the Language Paradigm: A Tool for Promoting Social Progress” that the use of this term has contributed to the alienation of racial minorities in the United States from the white majority. Because language has such a powerful effect on how each person perceives the world, labels that are prejudicial like these have much more dramatic consequences than we are aware of. Therefore, more serious and focused efforts should be undertaken to promote the deletion of these terms.

People who willingly consider themselves “minorities” seem unaware of the fact that they are unconsciously labeling themselves as being of inherently lesser value. The root of the word minority means less than. However, even academics continue voluntarily to label themselves as a “minority” without fully understanding the implications of their word choice. Payne writes “The defense and abuse of the word minority is one example of the perpetuation of intellectual institutional racism in the USA.” We resist thinking of ourselves as a country of racists, but we let this language persist without even questioning the validity of its use. Labels that group together into stereotypes are almost always negative. They tend to lead to overgeneralization and they devalue the accomplishments of the individual. This is exactly what is happening with the use of the word "minority."

In addition, labeling someone a minority can lead to a viscous cycle of self fulfilling prophecy. Because children are told that they are not as important or valuable as the majority, they do not expect as much from themselves. Sometimes teachers expect less from minority students because of these negative stereotypes as well. Being labeled as “less than” must have a devastating effect on an individual’s psyche. In addition, the word "minority" is not always used in the correct sense. The US News and World Report refused to call the white students at one university a minority even though there were less than 50% of them on campus. They defended themselves by saying that they were labeling the whites based on outside statistics. However, because this label is not used consistently, it seems to stereotype non-white students negatively. This adds to the inequality of the label. Whites are cognizant enough that they deem the label to be degrading when used to describe them, yet are not progressive enough to see the devastating effects it has on other ethnic groups.

There has been some progress in the usage of this term, however. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 designated 4 distinct minority groups. It was out of the late sixties that the term minority started to arise. Yet it was in 1988 that the San Diego Unified School district banned the usage of both the terms "minority" and "majority." In 2001, the San Diego city council eliminated the word minority from municipal documents. The city’s mayor claimed ”Minority means less than and language has strength.” Hopefully progress will continue in this direction, leading to fewer people being characterized as “less than.”

The implications of the word “minority”

Rarely do we as a society consider the implications that certain labels have on groups. Derogatory words are accepted as conversational vernacular despite the negative impact they can have. The use of “that’s so gay” is a new example that has emerged from the younger generation. This aligns all things negative with a homosexual orientation. Even though many attempts have been made to eradicate it from every day usage, it is still present despite its hurtful connotations. Another example of a negative word usage that has been around much longer than “gay” and has been questioned much less frequently is the label of “minority.” Skywalker Payne argues in his article “Time to Change the Language Paradigm: A Tool for Promoting Social Progress” that the use of this term has contributed to the alienation of racial minorities in the United States from the white majority. Because language has such a powerful effect on how each person perceives the world, labels that are prejudicial like these have much more dramatic consequences than we are aware of. Therefore, more serious and focused efforts should be undertaken to promote the deletion of these terms.

People who willingly consider themselves “minorities” seem unaware of the fact that they are unconsciously labeling themselves as being of inherently lesser value. The root of the word minority means less than. However, even academics continue voluntarily to label themselves as a “minority” without fully understanding the implications of their word choice. Payne writes “The defense and abuse of the word minority is one example of the perpetuation of intellectual institutional racism in the USA.” We resist thinking of ourselves as a country of racists, but we let this language persist without even questioning the validity of its use. Labels that group together into stereotypes are almost always negative. They tend to lead to overgeneralization and they devalue the accomplishments of the individual. This is exactly what is happening with the use of the word "minority."

In addition, labeling someone a minority can lead to a viscous cycle of self fulfilling prophecy. Because children are told that they are not as important or valuable as the majority, they do not expect as much from themselves. Sometimes teachers expect less from minority students because of these negative stereotypes as well. Being labeled as “less than” must have a devastating effect on an individual’s psyche. In addition, the word "minority" is not always used in the correct sense. The US News and World Report refused to call the white students at one university a minority even though there were less than 50% of them on campus. They defended themselves by saying that they were labeling the whites based on outside statistics. However, because this label is not used consistently, it seems to stereotype non-white students negatively. This adds to the inequality of the label. Whites are cognizant enough that they deem the label to be degrading when used to describe them, yet are not progressive enough to see the devastating effects it has on other ethnic groups.

There has been some progress in the usage of this term, however. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 designated 4 distinct minority groups. It was out of the late sixties that the term minority started to arise. Yet it was in 1988 that the San Diego Unified School district banned the usage of both the terms "minority" and "majority." In 2001, the San Diego city council eliminated the word minority from municipal documents. The city’s mayor claimed ”Minority means less than and language has strength.” Hopefully progress will continue in this direction, leading to fewer people being characterized as “less than.”

Origin of Language

The new experiments conducted at the University of Rochester have started to stir up some excitement in the field of psychology. These researchers provided findings that contradict the idea that there is only one language center of the brain. Their results have led to speculation on the very creation of language in human existence.

The psychologists at the University of Rochester were examining whether or not multiple areas are used in understanding various grammatical structures in the brain. There are some languages (like English) that create meaning from word order in the sentence. Others (like Spanish) rely on suffixes and inflection to convey subject-object interaction. However, in sign language, both are used. Therefore, this study took the signers and asked them to watch the two types of sentences being signed. There was a distinct difference in the brain activity that correlated with watching one grammatical structure versus the other. The temporal lobe was more activated in the word order sentences and the temporal was more activated in the suffix driven one. Therefore, many different parts of the brain are used in the comprehension of language.

I am not completely convinced by the results of this study however. It may not be fair to generalize an outcome based on a population of signers to all human beings. People who speak sign language may have different brain characteristics from those who don’t. Speaking several languages shapes how one thinks, therefore each language may have a unique impact. But overall, I do agree that there is not one single area of the brain that is dedicated to language production and comprehension. Language seems much too complex for that to be the case.

This leads to the debate about what differentiates animal brains from human ones. Human brains are much larger and have more white matter (aka more neural connections) than animal brains. Richard Leaky argues that humans developed the ability to produce language 300,000-400,000 years ago. However, Steven Pinker thinks that language first appeared with the appearance of the first modern human beings 200,000 years ago. He argues this because there was approximately a tripling of the size of cranial skulls within this period. The dramatic increase could easily have been due to the introduction of language into human capabilities.

There is also another argument that is based on the appearance of tools and trade into human culture. Matt Ridley argues that it is actually cultural pressure that launched the formation of language. Communication was necessary so that trade could happen and flourish between various human groups. Brains had to change to accommodate and to facilitate this phemonenon. If this assumption is correct, then language is a much newer development than either Leaky or Pinker would have predicted.

How Language of Politics is Different

Geoff Nunberg, a leading linguistics professor from UC Berkeley, delivered a symbolic systems distinguished speaker lecture concerning the differences between political language and normal spoken language. Generally, linguists look at one word and the attitudes it evokes in politics. Instead, Nunberg decided to look at linguistic generalizations that can be drawn and themes that keep recurring in the study of political language. He emphasized two main features of political language, the contestation of this language and the persistence of expressive character. He briefly mentioned a third feature, dog-whistle literalisms. However, because he did not have very much time left in his lecture, he didn’t truly elaborate on this idea.

Before Nunberg could delve into his intended message, he first defined the concept of political language. Political language, according to him, “is the language of public discourse that shapes public opinion on matters of politics and other (below other fold) social and cultural issues.” There are certain basic words that are essential to the formulation, justification, and explanation of political issues. These words are almost always contested words. These basic words are broken down further into categories such as hardy perennials (words that have been used for many consecutive generations such as freedom, liberty, patriotism, etc) governmental/ secular language (have increased in popularity over the last 75 years such as liberal, conservative, terrorism, etc), issues-specific language (only pertaining to one topic such as undocumented, green, bailout, etc) and then there also uncontested terms (election and regime). However, Nunberg stressed the importance of vocabularies as well as individual words.

Nunberg also went onto explain why political language is so different from normal speech. He stressed two key differences – the unique speech situation and the object of communication. Political language is usually aimed at many diffent audiences at the same time – plurality of addressees. The speaker has to be cognizant of the fact that not only are supporters listening to him, but also dissenters as well, dissecting every sentence of his speech. This obviously creates complexities to political language that are not found in normal language. In addition, the object of communication argument depicts the functionality of this political language. Normally, political language is assumed to be used for persuasive purposes. However, this is not completely true today. Not only employed to rationalize, mobilize, legitimize, and justify, political language is even used in the realms of entertainment. Therefore, the exact purpose of political language is not always completely clear. And his example of contested language again highlighted the ambiguities rampant in political language.

The use of contested language inevitably involves serious arguments about the correct usage/definition of the words in question, which cannot be settled by appealing to reason or evidence. Contested language is normally employed either aggressively or defensively. People argue about certain words because they believe that there should be one agreed-upon definition – not that it is necessarily morally appropriate but just so that everyone can understand the implications of the word if they choose to use it. However, that being said, no true compromises have been reached concerning contested language.

In addition, Nunberg described the persistence of expressive character, or in other words, the trend that the symbolic connotations of a term persist after its meaning or denotation has changed. The associations with old words persist even when the reality behind them has changed. His most potent example was that of the word “socialism.” The term socialism has been used more and more frequently, but it has been completely stripped of any previous historical connotations.

All of the topics Nunberg presented raise interesting questions about the foundations of political language. If investigated more thoroughly, these ideas could revolutionize the way political language is viewed.