The Hebrew language revival and its effects on unifying Israel and on assimilating immigrants

The Hebrew language revival and its effects on unifying Israel and on assimilating immigrants

The increased availability of technology has improved communication in most parts of the world. This interchange among languages and cultures has had a radical impact on the composition of different societies worldwide. Instead of thousands of distinct cultures, there is a trend toward blending and global assimilation. The most noticeable consequence of this has been the extinction of a number of unique languages. Instead of preserving historic languages, people are choosing global lingua francas such as English, Mandarin, Spanish, and Arabic. There are 6,059 languages with one or more speakers and only 80 languages with 10⁷ speakers, a staggering difference (Boroditsky Lecture, Stanford University, Psych 55). Among these 6,059 less widely spoken languages, hundreds will be extinct in the near future.

Language and culture overlap and are inextricably linked, so the loss of a language represents far more than a lost method of communication. Language embodies and reflects its society. It can be the differentiating factor among various tribes. Other sociologic aspects such as rituals, rights, and religion can all be integral parts of a language. Because of this inter-relationship between language and culture, when a language is no longer spoken by a group of people, their ancestral way of life may be pronounced dead.

However, groups and dedicated individuals have started to fight this trend of assimilation. They understand the vital role that a language can play in protecting a culture. Therefore, they are guarding and preserving their individual linguistic heritages. Many Native American tribes in the Northeastern United States have undertaken projects to revive their dead languages. One group is trying to recreate a spoken language from artifacts found centuries after the last native speaker died. As small tribes struggle to bring back their ancestral languages, they may receive inspiration and direction by looking at one of the world’s only successful language revitalization efforts, that of the Hebrew language.

Hebrew is currently one of the national languages of Israel, even though a mere century and a half ago there were no native speakers. Of course, an accomplishment this dramatic elicits questions. How did this drastic change come about? Under what circumstances did the Hebrew language revival begin, and what factors made this possible? How has this revitalization affected modern Israel? How do immigrants now cope with the language differences in Israel?

This paper will address these questions. First, the history of revitalizing the Hebrew language will be discussed. This will show how unique the circumstances surrounding this process were and why they cannot be easily duplicated for other endangered languages. Then, more current experiences of the Hebrew language in Israel will be explored. Last, the experience of immigrants coming to Israel will be examined, and the key role that the absorption centers (ulpanim) have in teaching the Hebrew language and in promoting Israeli nationalism will be analyzed. Hebrew is a spoken language today because of the convergence of favorable circumstances unique in history, and its revitalization has greatly contributed to the strong sense of national identity in Israel, an especially remarkable feat given that Israel is a nation of immigrants.

Clarification of Important Concepts

Observing the vitality of spoken Hebrew in Israel today, it is almost impossible to imagine that one hundred fifty years ago there were no native speakers and that the language was dead. This unexpected turnaround is astonishing because Hebrew has evolved from being used exclusively for religious purposes to being an accepted and essential part of Israeli everyday life.

The term “dead” needs to be clarified because the circumstances associated with Hebrew form an unusual case from the start. While Hebrew was “dead” in the sense that there was no group of native speakers who used it for daily communication, it had never been completely eradicated. Because both the Torah and the Talmud are written in Hebrew (although using very different Hebrew styles), members of the Jewish Diaspora studied in Hebrew as part of their religious observances. However, Hebrew was most frequently used in a written form. No one spoke Hebrew by choice, but only out of religious necessity. Even then it was a broken form of Hebrew as opposed to a fully vibrant and useful form. Therefore, although in some aspects Hebrew was “dead,” it still had a pulse and was ready to be revived.

In addition, it is important to differentiate among the different types of Hebrew. Modern Hebrew spoken today is distinct from the Hebrew spoken in ancient times, Biblical Hebrew, and Mishnaic Hebrew (Fellman, 1973). Although, it shares many similarities in alphabet, structure and basic grammar, it has evolved to encompass a different lexicon than that which was present thousands of years ago. So even though Hebrew has returned, an ancient speaker of the Hebrew language would not understand a modern speaker in any context. Therefore, Hebrew has been revived, but not historically preserved.

Ben Yehuda and the Reemergence of the Hebrew Language

While no single person can take sole responsibility for the revival of the Hebrew language, one early proponent of the idea was Ben Yehuda. Over time, through a massive cultural shift, many Jews realized the importance of this language to their heritage. But Ben Yehuda was the figurehead of the revival process, as he dedicated his life to reviving Hebrew as a spoken language. Born in 1858 in what is today Belarus and educated at the Sorbonne in Paris, Ben Yehuda immigrated to Palestine in 1881. Through his study of Hebrew at the Sorbonne and as a result of his introduction to Zionism there, he began to appreciate the importance of having a common language to unite the Jewish Diaspora, and so did everything in his power to promote this movement (Kaufman, 2005).

For thousands of years, the Jewish people tried to maintain their distinctive character and their unity in spite of the Diaspora. Most scholars believed that Jews would be reunited by reclaiming the Palestinian land promised to them in the Bible. The Jewish people were physically dispersed throughout the world with only their religion to unite them. In this historical setting the Jewish dream of a common land and a common language seemed unrealistic and unattainable (Kutscher, 1957). The twenty-one year old Ben Yehuda, however, published an article that captured the imagination and awakened the hope of the dispersed Jewish population. He proposed that emigration and settlement in Palestine was the answer to freeing the Jewish population from outside assimilation. Further, he introduced a completely new term, leomut, which means nationalism, into the Hebrew vocabulary (Fellman, 1973). As a means of achieving this end, he suggested that the only way the Jewish Diaspora could gain a sense of nationalism similar to that of European countries was to have a language unique to the Jewish people. His was thus the defining criterion that galvanized the Jews and challenged them to become a more unified and legitimate force (Kaufman, 2005). Ben Yehuda hoped that the revival and use of the Hebrew language would one day lead to its instatement as Israel’s national language.

Even though his vision was powerfully simple, bringing it to pass was an extremely difficult process. There were no native speakers of Hebrew at that time. The only types of Hebrew commonly known were thousands of years old. And even these (Biblical, Yemenite, Talmudic, Medieval) did not resemble each other very closely (Kaufman, 2005). Therefore, when Jews from different places tried to communicate with each other, they used broken Market Hebrew, which was a mix of all these different types. This resulted in limited conversation because there were so few modern words available in any of these types of Hebrew (Fellman, 1973). Jews tended to use a grammar that was a Biblical and Talmudic hybrid, but it could vary greatly depending on the province or the country (Kaufman, 2005). There was no standardization and generally great confusion. Most only used this broken language as a last resort so that they could communicate with other Jews. No group of Jews, however, used Hebrew as a primary language, responsible for conducting all aspects of modern life. In addition to these obstacles, two different pronunciations of Hebrew, Sephardic and Yiddish, existed in Palestine as a result of immigration by different ethnic groups (Kaufman, 2005).

This was the state of Hebrew when Ben Yehuda decided to undertake its revival. He devoted his entire life to standardizing, changing, and modernizing Hebrew into a more useful form. There were three important components to the revitalization process. These included the exclusive use of Hebrew in his home, the use of Hebrew socially (especially in schools), and the creation of the Language Committee or Language Academy to oversee the use of Hebrew in Palestine (Kaufman, 2005).

Ben Yehuda first implemented his vision in his own home as he and his family agreed to speak only Hebrew in their house. Ben Yehuda’s son, Ben Aviv, was raised hearing only Hebrew for the first seven years of his life. Probably because of the limits and brokenness of the language at that time, Ben Aviv did not start to speak until he was four years old. However, once he did, he became the first native speaker of Hebrew in two millennia (Fellman, 1973). It was through this personal example that Ben Yehuda started to convince others of the practicality of his plan. This tangible evidence of the feasibility of using Hebrew brought his proposal out of the purely theoretical realm. No other family was willing to make such a dramatic change until Ben Yehuda proved it could be implemented successfully.

The next step for Ben Yehuda was to introduce Hebrew into the social spheres. In 1884, he began to edit a weekly newspaper, the Ha-Zevi, written entirely in Hebrew. It was through this medium that he actually started to develop the lexicon of Modern Hebrew. He felt no qualms about coining neologisms, as he filled the gaps in Biblical Hebrew with Talmudic and Medieval Hebrew and even Market Hebrew. In this way, Ben Yehuda created a new, functional hybrid language from his available sources (Fellman, 1973).

Ben Yehuda also sought to influence youthful minds through the education system, so he began to teach classes in Hebrew. He did not teach his students how to speak Hebrew but instead used Hebrew to teach other subjects. Many people became convinced about the efficacy of his approach and so joined his effort to teach in Hebrew as well (Kaufman, 2005). In teaching young adults and children, people who were still impressionable, he reached a motivated and attentive audience.

The last step in Ben Yehuda’s revival process was his work on the first Hebrew dictionary and his establishment of the Language Council. With an increasing number of people speaking Hebrew, the lexicon grew from 7,000 to 50,000 words (Rabin, 1963). Ben Yehuda tried to regulate some of this rapid change and to standardize the language through his thesaurus, Totius Hebriatatis. This enormous project resulted in sixteen volumes of Hebrew definitions. However, it became obsolete when it was replaced by a dictionary compiled by the Hebrew Academy (Kaufman, 2005). This Hebrew Academy was founded by Ben Yehuda in 1903, and its most basic function was to create Hebrew words. The Academy received many requests from teachers who wanted a specific term provided so they could give more precise instruction in their subjects. Members of the Academy first searched literary sources for a possible equivalent, but if that proved fruitless (which in most cases it did), a new word had to be created. There is no exact record of how many different words they coined, but it is estimated to be around twenty to thirty thousand (Rabin, 1963). Most of these terms, however, did not become part of normal usage. Because the council was a committee, their process was excruciatingly slow. By the time they had agreed on a new word, people had already started to use their own terms, rendering the council redundant in this area (Kaufman, 2005). The council later acted as an arbiter, settling disputes over new words. They tried to standardize the language by deliberating on the “best” word and its pronunciation. They took into account the various uses of each term and the source of the word, as they determined how well it would fit into the Hebrew vernacular. Some Jews were understandably offended by what they considered to be the corruption of their sacred language. However, because of the complexity of the situation, it was impossible to appease and to please everyone.

Modern Hebrew started to emerge as a unique language from its beginnings as an awkward hybrid of many different types of Hebrew. There was a resurrection of certain Biblical Hebrew terms, which were redefined so that they suited the new environment (Rabin, 1963). In fact, many words no longer carried the religious connotations they originally had had. Those who created new words tended to base them on Hebrew and Semitic roots and stems (Fellman, 1973). This pattern persisted, as international words were continually rejected in an effort to keep Hebrew as pure as possible. It is also difficult to insert English words, for example, into the patterned Hebrew language, so creation was easier than adoption (Rabin, 1963). Yet this process is not normal, as most modern languages regularly incorporate English cognates into daily usage. In addition to these difficulties, Biblical Hebrew was notoriously poor in formative elements, such as prefixes and suffixes (Rabin, 1963). This issue had to be addressed to bring Hebrew into the modern age. As people started to speak Modern Hebrew regularly, a large slang vocabulary of almost 2,000 words started to emerge (Rabin, 1963). In addition, due to the mixed resurrection of the language, it contained inconsistent grammatical patterns, even when spoken by the educated elite. The younger generation identified with and adopted this new type of speech and so resisted efforts to “correct” it, resulting in this odd mix of a language.

The new version of Hebrew goes beyond being a pure resurrection of ancient Hebrew. Instead, it is an outstanding example of how a language evolves and continually changes to adapt to new environments and uses. The main difference is that Hebrew developed in a much more rapid and artificial process than other languages (Kutshcer, 1957). What usually happens over centuries was compressed into decades for Hebrew. Yet, in the final analysis, the sound of spoken Hebrew was heard in Palestine again.

Why the Hebrew Revival Was Unique

By 1923, the British Mandate of September 29 dictated that the three national languages of Palestine would be Arabic, English, and Hebrew (Rabin, 1963). This was the first official verification that the Hebrew language was again a legitimate form of communication. It is because of this remarkably rapid process that other groups look at the resurrection of Hebrew as a model for their own language. However, the Hebrew language revival took place under unique circumstances that would be nearly impossible to duplicate. Because of these unusual factors, no other attempt to revive a language has been nearly as successful.

First, the Hebrew language is fundamentally connected to the Jewish faith. It has always been necessary for anyone who wished to be a bar or bat mitzvah to have at least a limited knowledge of Hebrew. Therefore, many Jews had had some exposure to the language, even though it was only the Biblical version, before the spoken revival occurred.

In addition, the massive numbers of immigrants who formed the first and second alyiot to Palestine greatly helped the revival (Kaufman, 2005). The alyiot consisted of people from many backgrounds and cultures, so they had no common language or mode of communication. These newcomers needed to be able to speak to each other, making them immediately amenable to the idea of a unifying language. They were willing to work together to bring back the Hebrew language for the sake of the Jewish state (Kaufman, 2005). The act of leaving their homes and all that was familiar to come to Palestine demonstrated their willingness to undertake a new way of life. And adopting a new language was merely one step in that process. The revival of Hebrew fortuitously coincided with this wave of immigration. These immigrants were also favorably disposed to allowing their children to be taught exclusively in this new language. The alyiot were thus an idealistic and committed population, and their love for Palestine and their openness to learning a new language provided the perfect setting for the revival of Hebrew to succeed.

The younger generation was also instrumental in establishing Hebrew as a spoken language. Because they were the demographic targeted through the schools, they quickly embraced Hebrew as their own private language (Kaufman, 2005). It became a method for the youth to communicate with each other without their parents fully understanding everything they said. In a sense, Hebrew was the perfect vehicle for the expression of mild teenage rebellion. It became “cool” to speak this new language. Thus, a new generation adopted Hebrew as its own means of communication. And as they matured, they passed on their language to their children, bringing the revival full circle.

This revival was successful because the necessary conditions were present simultaneously in Palestine in the early 20^th century. The dedicated leader Ben Yehuda had the vision of Hebrew as a unifying language and worked tirelessly to standardize and modernize it, making it accessible, and the alyiot enthusiastically learned it as part of their new life in Palestine. In this setting, later Jewish settlers arriving in Israel found a new national identity, as they too learned Hebrew as their national language.

Present Immigrants’ Experience in Ulpanim

The Hebrew language continues to be a unifying force in Israel, as it is fundamental to understanding and participating in Israeli culture. Today, Hebrew is at the heart of the Israeli national consciousness. Because Israel is a country composed of immigrants from all over the world, learning Hebrew is the bond that ties new immigrants to each other and to their new home. Israel has forged a national identity by integrating citizens from Asia, Europe, Africa, and North America. Each immigrant brings aspects of his culture to Israel, and as they all speak Hebrew, the diversity has been consolidated into a cohesive nation (Kutshcer, 1957). Thus, the Hebrew language has provided a synthesizing force that has kept Israel united in the face of world opposition.

Ninety percent of Israel’s Jewish population consists of immigrants or children of immigrants. Therefore, this large population needed (and continues to need) some way of being acculturated into the Israeli way of life (Katz, 1982). Understanding the cultural identity of a nation is an integral part of feeling fully accepted into a new home nation. Therefore, the Israeli government provides Absorption Centers and Hebrew Language classes (ulpanim) to teach immigrants their new national language and to transfer their loyalties to Israel. These language classes are intimately connected with the immigrants’ initiation into Israeli culture. The Hebrew Language Department of the Ministry of Education and Culture supervises the entire process of the ulpanim, from the selection of the teachers to their training, development, and even the choice of textbooks (Golden, 2001). All adult newcomers to Israel are entitled to free language classes at the ulpanim. Normally, the classes consist of five month periods of instruction lasting four to five hours per day. Between the years 1990-1995, there were an estimated 65,000 – 80,000 adult immigrants who attended ulpanim (Golden, 2001). This large section of the population was extremely open to learning about its new country. Therefore, the government took advantage of this impressionability by combining language classes with acculturation. Both education and acculturation involve the transmission of knowledge, cultural ideas, norms, and values.

Israel’s survival amidst its hostile neighbors depends in some measure on its citizens’ commitment to the religious-political ideology of Zionism. Because some immigrants may not fully understand or may not be fully committed to these ideas, the Absorption centers stress the importance of this philosophy. The government of Israel wants immigrants to become knowledgeable about Zionism and to develop a commitment it and to their new country, and then to start to identify themselves as Israelis in an Israeli society. Learning Hebrew provides the ideal opportunity for teaching and reinforcing Zionist ideology among Jews new to Israel.

In Israel, learning Hebrew unifies the country in two ways. First, it allows immigrants to understand and to communicate with each other. Second, it facilitates the vital acculturation process. While these processes can happen independently, the Israeli government recognized the effects of education and so created a hybrid of acculturation and language classes. Children who immigrate absorb Israeli culture through school and through their terms spent in the Israeli national army (L. Federman, Personal Communication, June 1, 2010). For adult immigrants, however, the ulpanim are their only exposure to the Hebrew language in such intensive settings. The lessons are structured around the history of the Jewish population, the religious and historical justification for the make-up of the government, the significance of Jewish holidays, and the values of Israeli society. The content of the curriculum emphasizes national unity, national holidays, national songs, national heroes, national values, and national ideology (Katz, 1982).

These Hebrew classes border on presenting propaganda. The government is intentionally influencing how these adults will think because their introduction to the Hebrew language is biased. For example, the teachers emphasize certain phrases and thoughts in Hebrew and shy away from controversial subjects (Golden, 2001). In this way, the new population is being trained on how to think and on how to be good citizens. The state’s goal is to convince immigrants that the Israeli system works in an effort to minimize dissent and chaos, making it an effective tool for creating a sense of unity, if not for inviting a broad discussion of issues. Past experiences are meant to be forgotten, as teachers rarely elicit conversation about former loyalties (Golden, 2001). Instead, immigrants are supposed to subordinate their backgrounds so that their transformation into Israeli citizens can be complete. Thus, these teachers may take advantage of their power as they teach Hebrew. They assume that if they do not allow immigrants to talk about their old lives, then their national loyalties will shift into the collective consciousness of Israel. Instead of promoting diversity in the population, the ulpanim classes create a homogeneous and well-indoctrinated category of immigrant. Teachers emphasize words such as “rebirth” and “born anew” to give immigration to Israel the most positive connotation possible (Katz, 1982). In fact, one does not “immigrate” to Israel, as the word for immigration is “aliyah,” meaning ascent and connoting both physical and moral upward movement (Golden, 2001).

The Jewish government has done an excellent job of building national unity in the immigrant population through the ulpanim classes. They foster a sense of national pride in a way that educational systems in most other countries do not stress. And for a country like Israel, often isolated in the international community, it is important to have a unified population base. The assimilation process promotes homogeneity and discourages diversity as it unifies the population, demonstrating the power the Hebrew language gives the Israeli government.

Concluding Remarks

Israel is one of the most complicated and controversial countries in the world today. Therefore, it is appropriate that its national language was revived through an unusual process. The circumstances, opportunities, and individuals that all joined together to make the revitalization of Hebrew possible were unique in history and are extremely unlikely ever to occur for any other group. Hebrew would not be spoken today if not for the hard work of Jews like Ben Yehuda and the willingness to adapt and to embrace a new language displayed by the immigrants of the alyiot. Hebrew has helped define Israel as a nation and unify its immigrant populations from around the world. Israel might not be the cohesive, nationalistic nation it is today without Hebrew as its national language. The Jewish population is fiercely loyal to Israel and understandably proud of its sacred language, which transcends simple communication as it reaches into the spiritual spheres.

References

Chen, M. The Hebrew language as a unifying factor for the Jewish people. Retrieved

from

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/18163.pdf

Chiswick, B.R. (1998). Hebrew language usage: Determinants and effects on earnings

among immigrants in Israel. Journal of Population Economics, 11, 1432-1475.

Fellman, J. (1973). Concerning the ‘revival’ of the Hebrew language. Anthropological

Linguistics, 15, 250-257.

Golden, D. (2001). Now like real Israelis, let’s stand up and sing: Teaching the national

language to Russian newcomers in Israel. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,

32, 52-79.

Kaufman, Jeff. (2005). The revival of the Hebrew language. Retrieved from

sccs.swarthmore.edu

Katz, P. (1982). Ethnicity transformed: Acculturation in language classes in Israel.

Anthropological Quarterly, 55, 99-111.

Kutscher, E.Y. (1957). The role of modern Hebrew in the development of Jewish-Israeli

national consciousness. PMLA, 72, 38-42.

Lustick, I.S. (1999). Israel as a non-Arab state: The political implications of mass

immigration of non-Jews. Middle East Journal, 53, 417-433.

Rabin, C. (1963). The revival of Hebrew as a spoken language. Journal of Educational

Sociology, 36, 388-392.

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.”