Ohio?

In response to "Ohio Language Roadmap for 21st Century Unveiled" (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,210059.shtml)

Ohio? Seriously? This is one of the three states the U.S. Goverenment picked to help structure the plan for language in America in the 21st century?
Surprisingly, yes.
Even though Ohio is land locked, unlike Oregon and Texas, the other two states selected for the study, they too chaare in a changing language landscape of America. Also results found effective in Ohio can serve as suggestions for othe inland states.
The primary reasons cited on the official website (http://chineseflagship.osu.edu/ohiolanguagesummit/) seem largely based on economic factors, for better trade in this ever globalizig world. Then only later do they move on to concepts of immigration and a changing U.S. demography.
But how much does the international trade reasoning really hold for a state wide language education? Does each member of an English-speaking factory line need to speak the Japanese of the company owning the factory? Do american investors look at percentage of English speakers before building a factory in China?
This is obviously not the case, and to view this as the reasoning behind mass multi-lingual education seems porrly concieved. According to their own statistics, it is quite apparaent that there is no single language they could teach to cover all their international trade. I do feel that it is important for those managing such companies to know or have hired at least one person to the management structure to assist communication in the foreign language, but this can be achieved through better language programs at colleges, or by putting more emphasis on recruiting the foreign nationals already in Ohio colleges. (http://chineseflagship.osu.edu/ohiolanguagesummit/research.html#q13)

Outside of this, the Ohio Language Roadmap had some strong suggestions, involving increasing education, creating cross cultural dialogue, and establishing a center for management of these goals. The better motivation for these recomendations is the growing immigrant population of Ohio, which can be seen as a large trend in the entire country.

Languange, India, and Ditching the Crown

In response to Jharkhand demand second language status for Santhali, Bengali (http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7571&Itemid=88), and Urdu gets 2nd official language status, (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Patna/Urdu_gets_2nd_official_language_status/articleshow/2475749.cms).

Over one billion people, in 2 million square kilometer's, speaking several hundred languages between them. Welcome to India!

The two articles above deal with the recent decision of the Indian state of Jharkhand to recognize Urdu as an official secondary languages and the reactions of speakers of other languages. After the state governtment added Urdu as an official second language, many advocates have come out to say that Bengali, the second most common non-tribal minority language in the state, should also be added. Others are advocating that Santhali, the most common tribal language, should be granted the same status; some pro-tribal advocates have stretched this petition to say that all nine tribal languages should be added.

In India, this is not some simple battle over semantics. Languages have been a dominant theme in the history of the country from it's independence. In the constitution of India, there is a 15-year plan for the removal of the colonist language of English from affaris of state. It is also stated explicitly that minorities people have a right to preserve their language and culture. Also, the constitution emphasizes that Hindi should be spread as a national language.

These three concepts move beyond just official language regulation, but well into the realm of national identity. In attempting to establish the identity of the newly emancipated India, the framers of the constitution wanted to wipe out the colonialist influence and identity forced upon them in the invading language, while forming a new common identity on the common national language of Hindi, but still allows each minority to keep and develop their language. A vision of pieces, each beautiful and complete on its own, stiched together over the common identity of being Indian. (Not all of this worked out as planned. Only 30% of the country speaks Hindi as their primary tongue, and the 15-year plan of working to completely move beyond English was abandonned in order to enable states without common languages to communicate in an official fassion.) To that end the government also recognizes 14 official languages.

Recognition as a state second language is not just a change in the CIA World Factbook in India. There are constitutionaly granted rights and regulations once a language has been given an official status within the state. Citizens of the state can then bring official greviances to the government in this language. Also, the burden moves from the minority speaking the language to the state to establish schools in this languange if needed. (This probably will not happen in most of Jharkhand. The primary schools are run in English, and mannaging to achieve 95% attendence in this current state of affairs.) In neighboring state Bihar, when Urdu recieved second language status the following changes were made:

Acceptance of representations and replies thereto.
Acceptance of documents by the Registration Offices.
Publication of important rules, regulations, etc.
Issue of orders and notifications of public interest.
Publication of important Government documents.
Publication of district Gazettes, and
Display of signboards. (source below)

But in a country with a rich language history, it seems more than plausible that the rejoicing among speakers of Urdu and desires of envious spearkers of other minority languages, could be based around a state validation of their identity. The languanges people speak are often closely tied to their cultures, and affect their self visualizations. It forms a common basis for communication among a people, creates a commonality. When a state goes so far as to pick one group of these fabrics as a language, it sends a message of validation.


Cited sources from www.languageinindia.com (Seriously... that's the name. It's almost more obvious than a .stanford.edu domain name.)
PART III
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Cultural and Educational Rights

29. Protection of interests of minorities.-

Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.

30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.-

All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

PART XVII
CHAPTER IV.-SPECIAL DIRECTIVES

350. Language to be used in representations for redress of grievances.-

Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State, as the case may be.

350A. Facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at primary stage.-

It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups; and the President may issue such directions to any State as he considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities.

351. Directive for development of the Hindi language.

It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages.

__________________________________
These two states (Bihar and Jharkhand) have a population of 86,374,465 persons according to the 1991 Census of India. Hindi is the regional and official language of both these states, which is spoken by 79.34 per cent of the population.

The major linguistic minority groups in these states include the speakers of Urdu (10.42%) [9.00 mil.], Bengali (3.18%) [2.75 million people], and Santali (3.09%). [2.67 million people]

2. Urdu in Bihar and Jharkhand

Urdu is one of the most important languages of Bihar and Jharkhand states. 85.42 lacs people of these states speak Urdu language. Hindi is the first official language of the state. Urdu is declared as the second official language in the undivided State of Bihar since 16th August 1989 for the following purposes:

Acceptance of representations and replies thereto.
Acceptance of documents by the Registration Offices.
Publication of important rules, regulations, etc.
Issue of orders and notifications of public interest.
Publication of important Government documents.
Publication of district Gazettes, and
Display of signboards.

Learning a Zombie Language

Response to Listening to Thai in Bangkok: Automatic Language Growth, a new approach to absorbing a hard language.
http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/7910
Flexible attendance schedule, learning from experts, dirty jokes... what more could a person want from a language-learning program. These are some of the elements of the Automatic Language Growth program created by linguist Dr. J. Marvin Brown.
The ALG program is based on the way children (are observed to) learn language, through listening and observing.
When an adult approaches a language through a traditional language class, they start by struggling with pronunciation and memorizing vocabulary, moving on to conjugation charts, copying lines of grammar, and translations. This is altogether the opposite of a baby's approach; babies will develop their language skills before they physically can speak. This yields a period of the time where the child-brain is an observer to the language process.
The ALG program tries to replicate this observer status by not allowing beginning students to speak in Thai. This also ensures that students only hear proper Thai, and don't form bad language habits by listening to their struggling classmates.
But no one will get much out of just hearing Thai spouted at them for hours a day, unless it is particularly memorable. That is where the dirty humor and politically incorrect jokes come in. Teachers use jokes as a way to make the words they are teaching stick. The idea is that over time, through hearing a word correctly used in many different contexts, that word will become part of the listeners vocabulary.
The theory behind the ALG program requires rejection of the "critical period hypothesis" of language learning. This theory states that children learn language differently than adults. There is an ideal period of language development in children, and that after this time, learning a new language is much harder. In the ALG program, adults attempt to learn language through the same techniques used by children.
Even with the "critical period hypothesis rejected, I do not think this is the most effective system for learning a language. The ALG program is only half of immersion, being placed in a situation where one must learn the language around them. It completely lacks the speaking component.
The theory also overlooks that even after children have their time of observers in a language, it takes many years as a participant, through trial and inevitable error, to gain the nuances of speech. Children do not immediately start speaking in full and proper language when they begin to speak, they try one set of sounds after another to build their speaking vocabulary from their listening vocabulary. Even after years of listening, many children still lack proper pronunciation.
The ALG program does in many ways resemble the ulpan programs established in Israel to teach Hebrew to new immigrants. Hebrew, an un-dead language, became the national language of Israel, but lacked modern speakers. Since there was no common language between the floods of people coming to the fledgling state, the classes had to be taught in a way that was without needing a common first languange. The basis of the ulpan is learning Hebrew through Hebrew.
In this process, language is taught through context and the expressiveness of the teachers, much like in the ALG program, but the fundamental difference is these classes also try to get the students speaking as soon as possible. In ulpan, students learn basic exchanges of greetings and words to begin speaking their new language within hours of starting the class. This allows students to begin their trial and error process earlier, and forces them to get comfortable with the awkwardness of speaking a new tongue much faster. (I worry that the transition from listening and learning to speaking may not be as smooth in the ALG program.)
Also, there is no translation. Ulpan is a full immersion process. Hebrew only. So if students want to communicate, in the same way kids are forced to learn a new language, the adults must learn their new language. The pace of an ulpan is such that students go from no background to fluent in eight months or less.
I think this is a better more complete system of quickly learning a language than the ALG system, which relatively seems to have about the same logic as Harold Hill's Think System.

Chicken Speak: Foul Language

http://blogs.smh.com.au/sit/archives/2007/10/language_problems_oh_sheesh.html

Since when has yelling at a toilet been a fineable offense? Aparently, as long as there has been swearing.

After being over heard by her neighbor, the cop, Dawn Herb now could suffer a $300 fine or up to 90 days in jail for swearing at her overflowing toilet. (If it helps clarify things , this was in Scranton, PA, the same town where NBC's "The Office" take place.)
Why do we have these lovely utterances, which apparently can put a person behind bars, in our language? What purpose do they serve?
According to Timmothy Jay in his book "Why We Curse: A Neuro-Psycho-Social Theory of Speech" (search: http://books.google.com/):
"Cursing permits a speaker to express strong emotions and/or produce an emotional impact on a listener. The impact can be positive, as in Joking or sexual enticement, or it can be negative, as in name calling or sexual harrassment." (p.9)
Jay points out that Paul Broca ( discoverer of the Broca's area, left frontal lobe of the brain when damaged produces aphasia) noticed that his patients still had the ability to swear and express emotional feelings towards their family. This was overlooked by Broca and his contemporaries, as their focus was aphasia, but has considerable significance in the realm of swearing.

This would imply it is possible that swearing, both in casual and taboo settings, is connected to the presence of strong emotion. So is the taboo based on when it is and isn't acceptable to certain levels of emotion? Who you can be open with, and who you can't be open with?
I'd have to say no. I do agree that there is some connection between swearing and emotion-- certainly Ms. Herb would agree to that, as I'm sure she was feeling many emotions at the time-- but I also feel it connects, at least in teen-use, back to the culture of slang, each generation wanting to differentiate from those before. Even if the curse words have existed long before the latest generation was even concieved, the unused "forbidden" words of the previous generation offer certain appeal to a group subconciously striving for uniqueness.
Although they may offer a certain emotional bond in their ussage among friends, I think this is only part of their background in use and language.
(So does Timmothy Jay. His book goes on to discuss the NPS theory-- where he poses the Neurological, Psychological, and Social-cultural systems which interplay to effect when and how we curse, or refreain from cursing. Check out the chart on page 22)

Is some form of cursing present in most of the languages represented in class? Are any devoid of cursing?

Fight for Survival

Ministry fails to get its language scheme rightHow technology can save dying indigenous languages
Persian swallowed alive by English language: linguist
Dingle pupils protest against Irish language policyNew website promotes importance of Gaelic language

It's been everywhere, a veritable cloud cover across the Google Alerts- Languages landscape. Languages fighting to make it to the next generation. Some wield bold new weapons, like the Miromaa program developed by the Arwarbukarl Cultural Resource Association, to protect their David from the assimilating force of language Goliaths. Other larger languages, like Ali Khazaeifar's Persian, can feel the ground shaking as the younger generations start to slip away. And underneath this battle no one can hear the whisper of a question... Does it really matter?
In relatively few of these articles, someone actually bothers to present a reason for the necessity of their language's continued existence. Each group just feels their language to be key to their own survival, acting out of a cultural self-preservation. But on the broad historical scale, is ti actually relevant if an individual language, or for that matter thousands of languages, blink out of existence?
John J. Miller doesn't hold back in what he considers the ridiculous attempts of language preservationists to prevent 'Language Death'. In his article How Do You Say 'Extinct'? , he points out that most languages facing language death do not offer that much to the general global population, and often language death is a natural cause of choices made by the native speakers to learn a new language for better chance of survival.
In this way language death is part of a more general 'language evolution', where the stronger more useful languages survive. If a person's life or environment changes, so that knowing one language provides a better chance for comfortable survival, is it wrong of them to choose against their mother tongue.
I can't say I feel great pull for preserving every language in existence. Recording and learning them before they pass on I consider of the utmost importance, but actual preservation comes down to the choice of the speakers.
There is no denying there is a wealth of knowledge within dying languages. If Languages are intrinsically connected to how we think, loss of language represents loss of mindset, loss of world view, even loss of some potential systems of thinking which could provide new approaches to modern problems.
And yet I find myself apathetic. In the end, I feel it is the choice of each set of speakers to preserve or not preserve their language. If they choose to, if on a multi generational level they are actively pursuing it, then there should be outside resources available, but it should not be the job of international organizations to keep these languages on life support. It just feels unnatural.

"Up-Syndrome"

Referring to "Mom urges language to put kids first, disability second" (http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/10/05/news/093new2.txt)
While my older sister Becky was in middle school, she would often correct people: I have "up-syndrome", not "down-syndrome".
She didn't really see her genetic condition in a negative light, and ever the optimist, decided that "up fit her better than the negative connotation of "down".
I'm not sure she if she ever knew that Down syndrome (Down's syndrome in British English) is actually named for John Langdon Down, who recorded its symptoms in 1866, and not a dissenting opinion from society. Because of Becky's terminology, I did not figure that out till high school.

Becky's attitude toward Down syndrome was largely shaped by her experiences in pre-school and the local, public Monroe County School System. Each of my three older sisters and I had what is known as an i.e.p. -- Individualized education program. This allowed our family to alter the standard public school curricula to our personal needs. For Becky, that included making our own school 'full inclusion'. After starting late, Becky took most classes with 'children without disabilities', each year the i.e.p. meeting was approached by family and school system with a can-do mentality, and that had a positive effect.
This idea is shared with Christine Totah's "Peoples First Language", terms designed for use at Pioneer Elementary School in Davis, California. Pioneer was a 'full inclusion' school, but Totah took issue with that terminology. It almost implies there is another class of people to be included, raising the question, who is being included, and who is doing the including?
Totah found this offensive, and drafted a resolution to change the terms of discussing disability from language of being characterized by disability to language of being people having certain conditions. For example, "he's autistic" should rather be phrased 'he has autism'.

In general the concept makes sense. People should not define those with disabilities by their condition, but some of her terminology changes are questionable. Changing "s/he is a midget" to "s/he is of short stature" seems to be misleading; "of short stature" could also mean just being 6 inches shorter than everyone else, whereas midget implies a much larger height difference and a more specific condition. Is it just the tone in which it is said that could make 'midget' a negative term, or does it actually have negative connotations? (It seems to me "of short stature", may be some family's "up-syndrome".)

Some of her changes, however, were particularly insightful. She replaces the terms "normal, typical, healthy kids" with "children without disabilities".
I was going to type "everyone else" in the spot above where I put "children without disabilities", but this change got me thinking. Who is 'everyone else'? Why is my sister not one of them? Is she really that different? By taking away normal, and inclusion, Totah completely reframes the topic. People are not normal or different, but rather may or may not have certain conditions.

The language used in describing disability is very important. It changes how people are perceived, how families approach raising children with disabilities, and even how those with disabilities see themselves.

Totah's full list of language changes is outlined in the school board resolution (http://www2.dcn.org/orgs/pioneerpta/images/full_inclusion_resolution.pdf).

If she can do it, so can we.

Referring to "Speaking the language where you live" (http://www.progressiveu.org/170641-speaking-the-language-where-you-live)

I have some definite objections to the tone of the article, the supposition that there is one form of English is "proper", and the feeling that language should be based around her convenience, but none of those is my real concern.

HOW DID SHE MAKE GOOGLE LANGUAGE POSTS?!?

I just don't understand it. (If you are reading this, dolphinqt, congratulations.)

Dolphinqt does seem to have a general distaste for learning new languages, as expressed in her final question:

Sometimes I believe I need to learn the languages people speak to get by. I do not think I should have to.
Should I?

I would almost suggest she learn a new language for a new perspective, maybe to understand what is like to try and present yourself and communicate in a second language. She seems to have little respect for those struggling in their new tongue, even those who are genuinely making an effort to learn a new language.

Also, 'succeeding in life and business' is not so simple a thing as just learning the language of the majority, certainly if it is a second language picked up later in life. To express oneself solely in a foreign tongue can put a person at a natural disadvantage in competition with native speakers. (Not to mention the taboo topics of underlying racism and stereotypes still present, subtly and overtly, in many parts of daily life in America) As we discussed in class, if a person speaks a language too well, in a manner that seems contrary to what their appearance would suggest, they often are often not fully trusted, seeming like a spy or poser.

I do agree that there is something to be said for knowing the primary language of where you live, but as I have previously mentioned, I do respect the rights and choice of a person who decides not to learn a new language. In doing so, that person does give up certain language-based opportunities, but that is their free choice.

It is interesting what dolphinqt seems to think are inherent language rights, or that even such things exist.
She implies that:
A person speaking the language shared by the majority of residents of a country has a right to easily understand and
be understood in business and their daily life in that country.

Is this a fair statement? I'm curious what some of the members of our class where many different languages cover their countries of origin would think about this idea.

Sketchy is the new ninja?

In reading William Safire's article "Language: Translating the lingo of adultalescence" (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/30/news/edsafire.php) I was left thoroughly confuzzled (an amalgam of confused and befuddled). Many of the slang expressions in the article were foreign to me.
There are two possible explanations: one, I am just not that hip with the jive of our generation, or two, I live in a different region of the country where some of these terms have not yet arrived.
It was telling when Safire added some regional qualifiers to the expressions, like Chapel Hill's "sketchy" and Rice's "adultalescence". It would have been interesting to see where more of these terms are being spoken, as most slang will vary campus to campus.
That makes sense though, as slang is usually new terms that have not had enough time to spread from lexicon to lexicon. It seems to me that the source of most expressions that become part of the national teenage vocabulary is the media, which draws from local sources. An expected migration of new words would be Southern California--> MTV/Movies/Television/Music--> U.S./ World.
Slang is an attempt by each generation to develop its own separate identity or subculture, an attempt that for the most part has been successful. Each decade of the 20th century has a unique set of words and expressions that characterize it.
It is obviously the natural tendency of language to change over time, but it is possible that this phenomenon only occurs at generational speed when national media distribution is involved.
I'm curious if any of Safire's expressions crossed to other teenage English speaking populations, and how may of them are spoken in the home states of other class members.