MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
No.
Quite a lot of study has shown all the people observed didn't do it.
This was then generalised to every person on the planet.
It is, literally, insane to state it's impossible as a flat statement.
But the people who have done such a thing generally have an extremely high IQ or other measure of intelligence.
Scalfin: You can't take psychological research and create flat all encompassing statements out of it. Give me any report and I'll find limitations and flaws with it. You should only be stating generalisations.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
So now people have to speak a language perfectly? No, it's not ideal, but it's not especially hard.
And I'm all for people learning another language, particularly major ones. But I'm not going to lament the loss of Gaelic speakers because no one uses it ever.
No, I'm not picking a side.
Although I will, from a neutral position, comment that Latin is also a language that isn't possible to master anymore.
It's almost incalcuable how much meaning is lost from any given document, or to really tell if we've translated it correctly, because of that.
Even the tiniest dialect inflection could skew a given sentence.
But I'm not saying Skalfin's way is the only way. I'm just not in agreement of dismissing a piece of information, not for sentimental reasons, but because it's a human frailty to want to make sure and clear decisions about things that don't have a sure and clear solution.
Oh and Scalfin's statement about puberty is wrong, it's more like after 25-30. And every person differs.
And I feel for the historians, I really do. But unless a kid decides he wants to spend his knowledge from a learned language only going over past texts to translate them opposed to, you know, talking to people, that's not a particularly good reason to teach them a dying language not in much use anymore.
Quid on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
So now people have to speak a language perfectly? No, it's not ideal, but it's not especially hard.
And I'm all for people learning another language, particularly major ones. But I'm not going to lament the loss of Gaelic speakers because no one uses it ever.
No, I'm not picking a side.
Although I will, from a neutral position, comment that Latin is also a language that isn't possible to master anymore.
It's almost incalcuable how much meaning is lost from any given document, or to really tell if we've translated it correctly, because of that.
Even the tiniest dialect inflection could skew a given sentence.
But I'm not saying Skalfin's way is the only way. I'm just not in agreement of dismissing a piece of information, not for sentimental reasons, but because it's a human frailty to want to make sure and clear decisions about things that don't have a sure and clear solution.
Oh and Scalfin's statement about puberty is wrong, it's more like after 25-30. And every person differs.
And I feel for the historians, I really do. But unless a kid decides he wants to spend his knowledge from a learned language only going over past texts to translate them opposed to, you know, talking to people, that's not a particularly good reason to teach them a dying language not in much use anymore.
Oh definitely. But it's something to consider. Maybe give them a choice earlier?
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Actually, dead Gaelic has an added value of being an ancestor of English, which makes it very useful for using both languages.
Spanish is also related to English, helps you use it, and is spoken by over 300 million people.
You might have serviceable use, but you haven't mastered it until you've internalized it, which quite a bit of study has shown you won't be able to do. Hell, you can't even hear the difference between unfamiliar morphemes after around age seven, if memory serves.
I have a class full of Chinese students that can identify three different t/z sounds that would say you're wrong.
Although I will, from a neutral position, comment that Latin is also a language that isn't possible to master anymore.
It's almost incalcuable how much meaning is lost from any given document, or to really tell if we've translated it correctly, because of that.
Even the tiniest dialect inflection could skew a given sentence.
I would think this would point to teaching Gaelic being useless from a historic perspective, because they won't be learning the language that was actually used in those old documents anyway.
So now people have to speak a language perfectly? No, it's not ideal, but it's not especially hard.
And I'm all for people learning another language, particularly major ones. But I'm not going to lament the loss of Gaelic speakers because no one uses it ever.
No, I'm not picking a side.
Although I will, from a neutral position, comment that Latin is also a language that isn't possible to master anymore.
It's almost incalcuable how much meaning is lost from any given document, or to really tell if we've translated it correctly, because of that.
Even the tiniest dialect inflection could skew a given sentence.
But I'm not saying Skalfin's way is the only way. I'm just not in agreement of dismissing a piece of information, not for sentimental reasons, but because it's a human frailty to want to make sure and clear decisions about things that don't have a sure and clear solution.
Oh and Scalfin's statement about puberty is wrong, it's more like after 25-30. And every person differs.
Firstly, I was thinking of phonemes, and the time is apparently six months, not seven years.
I'm not sure where you got 25-30, but a studies my textbook identifies only as "Johnson and Newport, 1989" and "Brown, 1958," as well as the Genie and Isabelle cases, seem to indicate that puberty is the time.
Johnson and Newport, is especially interesting as it showed that "the proficiency with which immigrants spoke English depended not on how long they'd lived in the United States, but on their age at immigration (Johnson & Newport, 1989). Those who arrived as children were the most proficient, whereas among those who immigrated after puberty, proficiency showed a significant decline regardless of theof the number of years in their new country."
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
I think the point is to have current gaelic speakers teach them. Ie to pass on the language while it's still alive.
Scalfin I can't go look up just the names and year, pm me the whole reference.
Also textbooks are a terrible source of psychological information compared to researching further on your own.
But you are right about phonemes, but it's not something that couldn't be explicitly learnt and then proceduralised. You could learn to make the japanese r/l sound, for instance, and then proceduralise it through practise.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I think the point is to have current gaelic speakers teach them. Ie to pass on the language while it's still alive.
If this is a response to me, then I understand that but because languages naturally evolve the intonation and sublayers of the language are going to be different than what they were 100 years ago.
I think the point is to have current gaelic speakers teach them. Ie to pass on the language while it's still alive.
Scalfin I can't go look up just the names and year, pm me the whole reference.
Also textbooks are a terrible source of psychological information compared to researching further on your own.
But you are right about phonemes, but it's not something that couldn't be explicitly learnt and then proceduralised. You could learn to make the japanese r/l sound, for instance, and then proceduralise it through practise.
Or you could send them to Boston. Of course, then you'd have idea/ideal confusion, but they're close enough anyway.
In one of my classes, the teacher asked one Chinese student for her last name, which apperantly has a sound that doesn't exist, leading to a conversation that finally led to an exchange somewhat like this:
student: The sound doesn't exist in English. You say it like this [repeats name]"
teacher: "so like an R?"
student: "no, it doesn't exist in English"
Me: "welcome to Boston!"
I've read other sources for my info, but they aren't lying around my room right now.
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
I'm reading up on more current research atm.
You really should be treating any research from 1990 backwards as a guidline for future researching of your own mate. Textbook sources are just for teaching students, they're not even usable in a paper. (Well, not where I'm studying anyway)
edit: and don't expect a definite response today, you've interested me now so I'm having a good look
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Because it is quite literally impossible to master a language if you start after puberty, and how many prepubescent kids do you know who would attend an optional class?
No, it really isn't. I'm doing it right this instant.
There's actually a good deal of science that suggests you can't comprehend a language (specifically the grammar/connotative meanings) past a certain point if you don't learn it before your brain is finished with its primary development. Its not definitive but what is definitive is that your brain will acts in a fundamentally different manner when utilizing the second language depending on a) your age of acquisition b) how much you've used the language.
Conceptually the idea is that if you learn a language early enough one is able to think natively in that language. The meaning and structure is implicit. When one learns a language later in life, that second language will inherently be metalinguistic or procedural. In other words, if you learn Spanish as a 50 year old, your brain translates it back into English (consciously or subconsciously). If you learn it at 5, your brain accommodates it and there's evidence that Wernicke's and Broca's (especially Broca) areas will have very different metabolic processes between a late and early bilingual.
But that's relatively new science (less than 20 years old, a lot of it less than 10) and results always vary when you're dealing with the brain.
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
Interestingly, I found some 2006 published research on switching between languages that throws a spanner in the works of some of that reasoning PantsB.
(Not enough to throw out the idea though, I wish to make clear. Age does make a difference.)
Mainly it seems to be an affect of similar vs dissimilar languages.
Thus it appears that neither language similarity nor age of L2 (second language) acquisition affects in a significant manner the way bilinguals control their speech, at least as indexed by the language switching task.
Btw this isn't meant to prove anything, it's just interesting.
There's a nice review of previous work at the start of this article as well.
Costa, Santesteban and Ivanona (2006)
How do highly proficient bilinguals control their lexicalization process? Inhibitory and language-specific selection mechanisms are both functional.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, Vol 32, No5, 1057-1074.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Interestingly, I found some 2006 published research on switching between languages that throws a spanner in the works of some of that reasoning PantsB.
(Not enough to throw out the idea though, I wish to make clear. Age does make a difference.)
Mainly it seems to be an affect of similar vs dissimilar languages.
Well, that's a bit of a given, as grammar and grammatical words (articles, to be, et cetera) change the least, so that the only difference between closely linked languages is a bit of vocab. I'd say the most intruiging thing we could get from this study would be to learn just how much Spanish takes from Arabic versus Romance by comparing the learning rates of Italian, French, and Romanian versus Arabic dialects (while standard Arabic is easier to find lessons for, it's changed relatively little compared to the Romance languages since al-Andalus, so a dialect would be a better comparison, especially French v. Moroccan Darija) by Spanish speakers or the rate of learning Spanish by Moroccan immigrants vs. Italian (more of them than French).
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
One of those "no difference" bilingual comparisons was Spanish <-> English btw, with English learnt late starting at 15.
(I have no idea how different these two languages are though)
Also, as a personal favour, could you break up your sentences a bit Scalfin.
I prefer some space for reading new information.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The retarded Swedish policy in Finland has filled me with strange loathing for minority languages.
Seriously, language shouldn't be preserved for it's own sake. If the next generation of kids want to speak the same language that everybody else are speaking, let them. Their parents have to swallow it.
Now, the Swedish in Finland...they take the preservation to a whole another level. Wasted countless hours in school learning a language that I am never going to use in my life. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/25/news/finland.php
Preserving the language clause doesn't even apply here, Sweden is right there next to us with 8 million speakers who aren't going to stop using it any time soon. 14 million worldwide.
Heh, here they want you to learn a made up pretend language, because normal Norwegian is just too darn close to that dastardly Danish. As a Dane living in Norway, I find that shit hilarious.
Indeed, learning Swedish in Finland is an utterly idiotic remnant from the days when Finland was a Grand Duchy or something. It has no other justification for existing than being ingrained in the system, and lobbying from the couple of measly percents of society that perceive some benefit in its existence. The best justification that I've heard for it, is that it prepares kids for learning other languages, and makes the leap to something like English easier. Wouldn't it be smart to just start with that straight away though?
Luckily I didn't have to learn Swedish, as I lived abroad, and they didn't expect me to cover several years' worth of material by myself.
Proponents of minority languages also try to pull the culture-card, and how these languages somehow magically enable people to think in entirely different ways, and this is beneficial because... it allows for a marginally different culture or something? It's not like only those people who speak Swahili are rocket scientists, and only those who speak a certain dialect of Gaelic are superior at researching cancer cures.
The benefits of few(or even only one), extremely widespread languages far outweigh the nearly non-existent benefits from having variety just for variety's sake.
If I had a choice(and means) to somehow make all but one or two of the world's languages disappear, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
(And hope that the remaining ones aren't ridiculously convoluted, like the writing in Mandarin)
I think the study of languages is fascinating and you can learn all kinds of stuff about human thought when you look at how different cultures formed words for their thoughts. Dan Brown ftw.
But I don't buy into preservation for preservation's sake. Life is dynamic.
Oh, studying languages can be fascinating and provide all kinds of insights into different cultures. It's just that the importance of these insights and the culture aspect of different languages is greatly exaggerated, apart from "That's pretty interesting".
I think people should just stop trying to preserve languages that are going to die anyway. Language evolves according to people, and society, not what some scholars or lobbyists decide.
Only exception I can think of is leetspeak, and those who use it outside ironic context need to be put to death.
Oh, studying languages can be fascinating and provide all kinds of insights into different cultures. It's just that the importance of these insights and the culture aspect of different languages is greatly exaggerated, apart from "That's pretty interesting".
I think people should just stop trying to preserve languages that are going to die anyway. Language evolves according to people, and society, not what some scholars or lobbyists decide.
Only exception I can think of is leetspeak, and those who use it outside ironic context need to be put to death.
Speaking the word "l.o.l." should be a capital offense when used outside of ironic context.
Some languages ought to be forcibly made to die, eh? I'll drink to that.
I'm more than a little biased about Scots Gaelic/Ghaidlig since I've been trying to teach myself, and the near-complete dearth of speakers and study groups is crippling these efforts significantly. I'm certainly not learning it out of necessity or a desire to communicate with certain people - like the chart says, there haven't been any catalogued cases of Ghaidlig-only speakers since the 70s. And while I'd hate to see it die because I think it's a beautiful language, I don't think it should be a mandatory class either; chances are quite high that any young student who is required to learn a language, particularly one they won't be using often, is simply going to forget it soon afterwards.
Chinese needs to die. So does Japanese, Gaelic, French... really, just get rid of them all so we can all just speak English.
Also, everyone here should read The Language Instinct and The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker.
I'm Welsh, and the number of Welsh speakers is actually increasing in Wales, with the language being used at an international meeting lately.
I cannot think of a more pointless and stupid waste of time and money than getting more people to speak Welsh.
Forcing 95% of the population to learn the 5% minority's language even though the 5% minority can already speak the majority's language is more pointless and waste of time and money in my opinion. Did I mention that every single official thing needs to be printed in both languages as well? I'm talking everything from capital area road signs to the stuff written in the back of beer bottles. Finnish and Swedish.
Costs the country about eighty million euros per year the last I checked. That's 100 million dollars. I bet I could find some better use for that money.
Oh, and Ã…land isn't forced to learn Finnish at all.
It makes perfect sense! NOT!
Seriously, we are probably the last civilized country in the world where a select minority has better rights then the vast majority has. Studies show that swedish-speaking Finns have more money, happier lives and all around better conditions then the rest of the country. They get in universities easier. Their party has WAY more power in the goverment then their miniscule size grants them. They completely and utterly own the media. We got our first non-swedish university in 1920. We got our first president with a non Swedish last name in 1956, and he was the eighth. All our most famous writers, painters, artists - swedish last names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedish-speaking_Finns.
Now, I am not saying it really compares to other countries, because it doesn't (not claiming it is language apartheid or anything)...but usually in those cases, it's the minority that has those problems, not the MAJORITY. Which makes Finland's situation really, really bizarre.
Okay, rant time ower.
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
BobCescaIs a girlBirmingham, UKRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
I don't know if anyone's mentioned The Welsh Language Act, but that, along with the increased powers of the Welsh Assembly has brought Welsh back from a minority, and dying, language within Wales to one which is extremely widely spoken and understood, and thought of as a benefit by many Welsh people.
Just saying.
EDIT: and I've just realised that two posts above Jo is talking about Welsh...duh...
We have Welsh language lessons as mandatory in High School (well it was when I was there anyway), all of our signs are printed in Welsh and English, and we have the Welsh assembly constantly pushing for us to become "more Welsh".
Yes I agree your situation is bizarre but ours is not far off.
DarkCrawler, you just haven't come to terms with your position yet. Back to where you belong, you dirty peasant. You're not welcome in the Smörgåsbord.
We have Welsh language lessons as mandatory in High School (well it was when I was there anyway), all of our signs are printed in Welsh and English, and we have the Welsh assembly constantly pushing for us to become "more Welsh".
Yes I agree your situation is bizarre but ours is not far off.
See, all the British officials don't have to pass an exam in Welsh, and all the children in UK do not have to study Welsh in High School.
From left field:
Everyone who says that the languages should be documented and then permitted to die are apparently unfamiliar with the limitations of "documenting" a language. I was in fact unaware of the differences within the IPA itself before this semester of phonetics, and now I am aware that the Dutch distinction between a voiced sound and a voiceless sound is actually different than the American distinction (which is aspiration) which is not to say that like Hindi that they're three distinct phonemes but that the point where the voice onset time goes to negative is the point at which they say "That's voiced!" as opposed to when it drops below being aspirated.
Not to mention dialectical differences that crop up and are really helpful in determining the limits of language parameters and normalcy.
Man, there wasn't even a glottal... whatsit... trill? Maybe? I can't recall. One or more of the glottal consonants were added after they were found in a Semitic language or dialect or something.
DarkCrawler, you just haven't come to terms with your position yet. Back to where you belong, you dirty peasant. You're not welcome in the Smörgåsbord.
We have Welsh language lessons as mandatory in High School (well it was when I was there anyway), all of our signs are printed in Welsh and English, and we have the Welsh assembly constantly pushing for us to become "more Welsh".
Yes I agree your situation is bizarre but ours is not far off.
See, all the British officials don't have to pass an exam in Welsh, and all the children in UK do not have to study Welsh in High School.
Fair enough. That's pretty crap. I wasn't saying that this was a good thing, I was saying that all situations like this are balls.
Chinese needs to die. So does Japanese, Gaelic, French... really, just get rid of them all so we can all just speak English.
Also, everyone here should read The Language Instinct and The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker.
I am ashamed that Words and Rules has been on my bookshelf for almost a decade and I have yet to read it.
Does this make me a horrible person?
In my defense, I have read almost all the Discworld books in the last year. :P
I'm Welsh, and the number of Welsh speakers is actually increasing in Wales, with the language being used at an international meeting lately.
I cannot think of a more pointless and stupid waste of time and money than getting more people to speak Welsh.
Forcing 95% of the population to learn the 5% minority's language even though the 5% minority can already speak the majority's language is more pointless and waste of time and money in my opinion. Did I mention that every single official thing needs to be printed in both languages as well? I'm talking everything from capital area road signs to the stuff written in the back of beer bottles. Finnish and Swedish.
Costs the country about eighty million euros per year the last I checked. That's 100 million dollars. I bet I could find some better use for that money.
Oh, and Åland isn't forced to learn Finnish at all.
It makes perfect sense! NOT!
Seriously, we are probably the last civilized country in the world where a select minority has better rights then the vast majority has. Studies show that swedish-speaking Finns have more money, happier lives and all around better conditions then the rest of the country. They get in universities easier. Their party has WAY more power in the goverment then their miniscule size grants them. They completely and utterly own the media. We got our first non-swedish university in 1920. We got our first president with a non Swedish last name in 1956, and he was the eighth. All our most famous writers, painters, artists - swedish last names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...speaking_Finns.
Now, I am not saying it really compares to other countries, because it doesn't (not claiming it is language apartheid or anything)...but usually in those cases, it's the minority that has those problems, not the MAJORITY. Which makes Finland's situation really, really bizarre.
I'm not Canadian, so I am uninformed to some extent, but isn't this the major complaint levied against the French-Canadians holed up in Quebec?
Still, 22% of the population, 7 million is a bit different from 5%, about 275,000 people. Who can all speak the majority language since they have grown up in the country from birth. Although I guess all French-Canadians can speak English too? And French is actually an useful language. I mean, 130 million people speak it, I wouldn't be as miffed if I had to learn it (although it shouldn't be forced). Here I can't learn French and I had to drop German because Swedish takes up all my time and I can't focus on three languages at the same time.
Not sure how much power the French-Canadians hold, but I see that the vast majority of all their prime ministers aren't from the minority group.
Canada is kind of wierd anyway, I mean, their head of state is British. :P
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Chinese needs to die. So does Japanese, Gaelic, French... really, just get rid of them all so we can all just speak English.
Also, everyone here should read The Language Instinct and The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker.
Die.
Seriously.
Chinese from my gf's mouth is so goddam cute.
Die, you soulless heathen.
I do want to ask though.
Aside from ethnocentrism and current popularity, so basically practicality concerns.
Why should everybody speak English over any other language?
For example thinking in english is quite slow in comparison to chinese, which has shorter words. Chinese people can say, eg, 1-20, in a rapid fire stocatto while an english person get's to seven and starts slowing right the fuck down. This affects thought as well. In general, people need to vocalise what they read, and what they think to themselves, and they do it in their primary language. If that language is faster to vocalise, then thoughts are faster.
From a real, honest to god, practicality perspective, where speed is valued in terms of thought, people should learn the fastest language. (Although not necesserily chinese)
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Chinese needs to die. So does Japanese, Gaelic, French... really, just get rid of them all so we can all just speak English.
Also, everyone here should read The Language Instinct and The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker.
Die.
Seriously.
Chinese from my gf's mouth is so goddam cute.
Die, you soulless heathen.
Yeah why should Chinese and Japanese die again? China is one of the worlds most powerful countries and could take over as the most powerful in the next hundred years.
Johannen on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
Also French sounds awesome.
English sounds ugly.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Chinese needs to die. So does Japanese, Gaelic, French... really, just get rid of them all so we can all just speak English.
Also, everyone here should read The Language Instinct and The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker.
I'm not so sure Pinker would be thrilled at anyone suggesting languages need to die out.
Granted, there would be significant benefit to everyone knowing two languages, a native one and a universal spoken language for business, trade, etc. I suspect that is the direction things will go naturally, and at the moment, it seems likely English is and will continue to be that language.
Posts
Quite a lot of study has shown all the people observed didn't do it.
This was then generalised to every person on the planet.
It is, literally, insane to state it's impossible as a flat statement.
But the people who have done such a thing generally have an extremely high IQ or other measure of intelligence.
Scalfin: You can't take psychological research and create flat all encompassing statements out of it. Give me any report and I'll find limitations and flaws with it. You should only be stating generalisations.
Oh definitely. But it's something to consider. Maybe give them a choice earlier?
I have a class full of Chinese students that can identify three different t/z sounds that would say you're wrong.
I would think this would point to teaching Gaelic being useless from a historic perspective, because they won't be learning the language that was actually used in those old documents anyway.
Firstly, I was thinking of phonemes, and the time is apparently six months, not seven years.
I'm not sure where you got 25-30, but a studies my textbook identifies only as "Johnson and Newport, 1989" and "Brown, 1958," as well as the Genie and Isabelle cases, seem to indicate that puberty is the time.
Johnson and Newport, is especially interesting as it showed that "the proficiency with which immigrants spoke English depended not on how long they'd lived in the United States, but on their age at immigration (Johnson & Newport, 1989). Those who arrived as children were the most proficient, whereas among those who immigrated after puberty, proficiency showed a significant decline regardless of theof the number of years in their new country."
Scalfin I can't go look up just the names and year, pm me the whole reference.
Also textbooks are a terrible source of psychological information compared to researching further on your own.
But you are right about phonemes, but it's not something that couldn't be explicitly learnt and then proceduralised. You could learn to make the japanese r/l sound, for instance, and then proceduralise it through practise.
I don't think being comparably skilled in a foreign language would leave me discontent. God forbid I should lose my charming American foreign accent.
If this is a response to me, then I understand that but because languages naturally evolve the intonation and sublayers of the language are going to be different than what they were 100 years ago.
Immigrants are interesting to listen to, because some sound native after three years and some sound fresh off the boat after forty.
Or you could send them to Boston. Of course, then you'd have idea/ideal confusion, but they're close enough anyway.
In one of my classes, the teacher asked one Chinese student for her last name, which apperantly has a sound that doesn't exist, leading to a conversation that finally led to an exchange somewhat like this:
student: The sound doesn't exist in English. You say it like this [repeats name]"
teacher: "so like an R?"
student: "no, it doesn't exist in English"
Me: "welcome to Boston!"
I've read other sources for my info, but they aren't lying around my room right now.
You really should be treating any research from 1990 backwards as a guidline for future researching of your own mate. Textbook sources are just for teaching students, they're not even usable in a paper. (Well, not where I'm studying anyway)
edit: and don't expect a definite response today, you've interested me now so I'm having a good look
Conceptually the idea is that if you learn a language early enough one is able to think natively in that language. The meaning and structure is implicit. When one learns a language later in life, that second language will inherently be metalinguistic or procedural. In other words, if you learn Spanish as a 50 year old, your brain translates it back into English (consciously or subconsciously). If you learn it at 5, your brain accommodates it and there's evidence that Wernicke's and Broca's (especially Broca) areas will have very different metabolic processes between a late and early bilingual.
But that's relatively new science (less than 20 years old, a lot of it less than 10) and results always vary when you're dealing with the brain.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
(Not enough to throw out the idea though, I wish to make clear. Age does make a difference.)
Mainly it seems to be an affect of similar vs dissimilar languages.
Btw this isn't meant to prove anything, it's just interesting.
There's a nice review of previous work at the start of this article as well.
Costa, Santesteban and Ivanona (2006)
How do highly proficient bilinguals control their lexicalization process? Inhibitory and language-specific selection mechanisms are both functional.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, Vol 32, No5, 1057-1074.
Well, that's a bit of a given, as grammar and grammatical words (articles, to be, et cetera) change the least, so that the only difference between closely linked languages is a bit of vocab. I'd say the most intruiging thing we could get from this study would be to learn just how much Spanish takes from Arabic versus Romance by comparing the learning rates of Italian, French, and Romanian versus Arabic dialects (while standard Arabic is easier to find lessons for, it's changed relatively little compared to the Romance languages since al-Andalus, so a dialect would be a better comparison, especially French v. Moroccan Darija) by Spanish speakers or the rate of learning Spanish by Moroccan immigrants vs. Italian (more of them than French).
(I have no idea how different these two languages are though)
Also, as a personal favour, could you break up your sentences a bit Scalfin.
I prefer some space for reading new information.
I couldn't really care less if something were to happen to it.
of course thats all i knew then too so i guess i havent lost much.
on the topic of minority languages, im all for teaching elvish in schools as well.
Lasto lalaith nîn
Seriously, language shouldn't be preserved for it's own sake. If the next generation of kids want to speak the same language that everybody else are speaking, let them. Their parents have to swallow it.
Now, the Swedish in Finland...they take the preservation to a whole another level. Wasted countless hours in school learning a language that I am never going to use in my life.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/25/news/finland.php
Preserving the language clause doesn't even apply here, Sweden is right there next to us with 8 million speakers who aren't going to stop using it any time soon. 14 million worldwide.
Luckily I didn't have to learn Swedish, as I lived abroad, and they didn't expect me to cover several years' worth of material by myself.
Proponents of minority languages also try to pull the culture-card, and how these languages somehow magically enable people to think in entirely different ways, and this is beneficial because... it allows for a marginally different culture or something? It's not like only those people who speak Swahili are rocket scientists, and only those who speak a certain dialect of Gaelic are superior at researching cancer cures.
The benefits of few(or even only one), extremely widespread languages far outweigh the nearly non-existent benefits from having variety just for variety's sake.
If I had a choice(and means) to somehow make all but one or two of the world's languages disappear, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
(And hope that the remaining ones aren't ridiculously convoluted, like the writing in Mandarin)
But I don't buy into preservation for preservation's sake. Life is dynamic.
I think people should just stop trying to preserve languages that are going to die anyway. Language evolves according to people, and society, not what some scholars or lobbyists decide.
Only exception I can think of is leetspeak, and those who use it outside ironic context need to be put to death.
Speaking the word "l.o.l." should be a capital offense when used outside of ironic context.
I'm more than a little biased about Scots Gaelic/Ghaidlig since I've been trying to teach myself, and the near-complete dearth of speakers and study groups is crippling these efforts significantly. I'm certainly not learning it out of necessity or a desire to communicate with certain people - like the chart says, there haven't been any catalogued cases of Ghaidlig-only speakers since the 70s. And while I'd hate to see it die because I think it's a beautiful language, I don't think it should be a mandatory class either; chances are quite high that any young student who is required to learn a language, particularly one they won't be using often, is simply going to forget it soon afterwards.
Also, everyone here should read The Language Instinct and The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker.
I cannot think of a more pointless and stupid waste of time and money than getting more people to speak Welsh.
Forcing 95% of the population to learn the 5% minority's language even though the 5% minority can already speak the majority's language is more pointless and waste of time and money in my opinion. Did I mention that every single official thing needs to be printed in both languages as well? I'm talking everything from capital area road signs to the stuff written in the back of beer bottles. Finnish and Swedish.
Costs the country about eighty million euros per year the last I checked. That's 100 million dollars. I bet I could find some better use for that money.
Oh, and Ã…land isn't forced to learn Finnish at all.
It makes perfect sense! NOT!
Seriously, we are probably the last civilized country in the world where a select minority has better rights then the vast majority has. Studies show that swedish-speaking Finns have more money, happier lives and all around better conditions then the rest of the country. They get in universities easier. Their party has WAY more power in the goverment then their miniscule size grants them. They completely and utterly own the media. We got our first non-swedish university in 1920. We got our first president with a non Swedish last name in 1956, and he was the eighth. All our most famous writers, painters, artists - swedish last names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedish-speaking_Finns.
Now, I am not saying it really compares to other countries, because it doesn't (not claiming it is language apartheid or anything)...but usually in those cases, it's the minority that has those problems, not the MAJORITY. Which makes Finland's situation really, really bizarre.
Okay, rant time ower.
Just saying.
EDIT: and I've just realised that two posts above Jo is talking about Welsh...duh...
Yes I agree your situation is bizarre but ours is not far off.
See, all the British officials don't have to pass an exam in Welsh, and all the children in UK do not have to study Welsh in High School.
Everyone who says that the languages should be documented and then permitted to die are apparently unfamiliar with the limitations of "documenting" a language. I was in fact unaware of the differences within the IPA itself before this semester of phonetics, and now I am aware that the Dutch distinction between a voiced sound and a voiceless sound is actually different than the American distinction (which is aspiration) which is not to say that like Hindi that they're three distinct phonemes but that the point where the voice onset time goes to negative is the point at which they say "That's voiced!" as opposed to when it drops below being aspirated.
Not to mention dialectical differences that crop up and are really helpful in determining the limits of language parameters and normalcy.
Man, there wasn't even a glottal... whatsit... trill? Maybe? I can't recall. One or more of the glottal consonants were added after they were found in a Semitic language or dialect or something.
I'm not a phonetician, though.
I am ashamed that Words and Rules has been on my bookshelf for almost a decade and I have yet to read it.
Does this make me a horrible person?
In my defense, I have read almost all the Discworld books in the last year. :P
I'm not Canadian, so I am uninformed to some extent, but isn't this the major complaint levied against the French-Canadians holed up in Quebec?
Still, 22% of the population, 7 million is a bit different from 5%, about 275,000 people. Who can all speak the majority language since they have grown up in the country from birth. Although I guess all French-Canadians can speak English too? And French is actually an useful language. I mean, 130 million people speak it, I wouldn't be as miffed if I had to learn it (although it shouldn't be forced). Here I can't learn French and I had to drop German because Swedish takes up all my time and I can't focus on three languages at the same time.
Not sure how much power the French-Canadians hold, but I see that the vast majority of all their prime ministers aren't from the minority group.
Canada is kind of wierd anyway, I mean, their head of state is British. :P
Die.
Seriously.
Chinese from my gf's mouth is so goddam cute.
Die, you soulless heathen.
I do want to ask though.
Aside from ethnocentrism and current popularity, so basically practicality concerns.
Why should everybody speak English over any other language?
For example thinking in english is quite slow in comparison to chinese, which has shorter words. Chinese people can say, eg, 1-20, in a rapid fire stocatto while an english person get's to seven and starts slowing right the fuck down. This affects thought as well. In general, people need to vocalise what they read, and what they think to themselves, and they do it in their primary language. If that language is faster to vocalise, then thoughts are faster.
From a real, honest to god, practicality perspective, where speed is valued in terms of thought, people should learn the fastest language. (Although not necesserily chinese)
English sounds ugly.
I'm not so sure Pinker would be thrilled at anyone suggesting languages need to die out.
Granted, there would be significant benefit to everyone knowing two languages, a native one and a universal spoken language for business, trade, etc. I suspect that is the direction things will go naturally, and at the moment, it seems likely English is and will continue to be that language.