Guest2: I found a link for you. THIS is what I'm most interested in, not learning a certain foreign language per se. To wit:
http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields-neuro.cfm
http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields-neuro.cfm
Are there any linguists among Antimooners?
Jasper Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:10 am GMT:
<<[Learning a foreign language is never a waste of time, even if you don't practice it].
Guest2, I'd beg to differ. I had two years of French in the 70s--and loved every single minute of it! But I had no opportunity to practice it with anybody. Over the years, I lost it; nowadays, I remember very little French.>>
I had almost 7 years of French at school. (We had several teachers, and most of them were not the way they one would like to love their teaching.)
I also didn't have much opportunities to practice with anybody. But as I live in Europe, more accurate in Germany, with neighbouring French (I don't live near the French border, but some tenth of km east of Frankfurt/Main), I think it's good to have some passive knowledge of French. There is some French vocabulary in German as well as in English. French provides some kind of ''cultural background'' to me, because it's a romance language. So, in the internet, I at least have some notion of the meaning of certain texts in romance languages I might come across.
Some weeks ago, I started to list all words I still know in French. I'm not finisched with that, but I recommend you to try the same. It might take a while for the ''lost'' vocabulary to show up. Listen to French music.
Remember the effect after having passed an examination:
you have forgotten most of the things you've learnt a few weeks later.
But you will remember if you start to work on that topics again.
<<As KT has correctly noted, Americans are practical minded. If we cannot use something, we don't want to learn it. Unless you love it, what's the use of learning it?>>
The ''useage of a language'' isn't just to converse in that language. You can listen to music in that language, enjoying the pleasent sounds, you can read books in that language, you can discover cognats and syntactical similarities with your mother tounge or other tounges. You can enjoy making up a language by your own. This will help you in investigating the ''mechanics'' of languages. Think of an mechanician who doesn't know that a screw might be tight so that it needs some effort to get it loose, because he had just learnt the mathematics behind his job.
What I wanted to point out in my previous post is, that things are related one to another. Even if they are different, you can't stick to just one of them if you really want to be good in this field. You also need some knowledge and experience on related fields (and on the fields of application) to really be educated, to really be an expert or master.
Thats the reason why in Germany, for getting a university diploma, you need to study a subsidiary subject (Nebenfach) besides the principal subject (Hauptfach). Unfortunatly, they now change to Bachelor/Master
degree programme.
<<By the way, practicing a foreign language online would only be useful for the purposes of written language, and useless for conversation....>>
There are also websites providing for language learning conversations via the internet.
<<[Learning a foreign language is never a waste of time, even if you don't practice it].
Guest2, I'd beg to differ. I had two years of French in the 70s--and loved every single minute of it! But I had no opportunity to practice it with anybody. Over the years, I lost it; nowadays, I remember very little French.>>
I had almost 7 years of French at school. (We had several teachers, and most of them were not the way they one would like to love their teaching.)
I also didn't have much opportunities to practice with anybody. But as I live in Europe, more accurate in Germany, with neighbouring French (I don't live near the French border, but some tenth of km east of Frankfurt/Main), I think it's good to have some passive knowledge of French. There is some French vocabulary in German as well as in English. French provides some kind of ''cultural background'' to me, because it's a romance language. So, in the internet, I at least have some notion of the meaning of certain texts in romance languages I might come across.
Some weeks ago, I started to list all words I still know in French. I'm not finisched with that, but I recommend you to try the same. It might take a while for the ''lost'' vocabulary to show up. Listen to French music.
Remember the effect after having passed an examination:
you have forgotten most of the things you've learnt a few weeks later.
But you will remember if you start to work on that topics again.
<<As KT has correctly noted, Americans are practical minded. If we cannot use something, we don't want to learn it. Unless you love it, what's the use of learning it?>>
The ''useage of a language'' isn't just to converse in that language. You can listen to music in that language, enjoying the pleasent sounds, you can read books in that language, you can discover cognats and syntactical similarities with your mother tounge or other tounges. You can enjoy making up a language by your own. This will help you in investigating the ''mechanics'' of languages. Think of an mechanician who doesn't know that a screw might be tight so that it needs some effort to get it loose, because he had just learnt the mathematics behind his job.
What I wanted to point out in my previous post is, that things are related one to another. Even if they are different, you can't stick to just one of them if you really want to be good in this field. You also need some knowledge and experience on related fields (and on the fields of application) to really be educated, to really be an expert or master.
Thats the reason why in Germany, for getting a university diploma, you need to study a subsidiary subject (Nebenfach) besides the principal subject (Hauptfach). Unfortunatly, they now change to Bachelor/Master
degree programme.
<<By the way, practicing a foreign language online would only be useful for the purposes of written language, and useless for conversation....>>
There are also websites providing for language learning conversations via the internet.
Jasper, I very well understand your point if it comes to linguistics, the questions about neurolinguistics are really interesting. But they are, to a certain degree, pointless (the nasal pleasency thingy) and, even worse, impractical.
<<The notion of perceiving one tongue--or accent--as unpleasant, while others perceive the same tongue as pleasant, may also have a neuronal base: it is possible that an element of cognitive dissonance is in play.>>
Yes, of course, everything we feel, think and do has a neuronal basis.
Yes, it might be interesting if it also depends on the physis of the body rather than on your experience only.
What is an element of cognitive dissonance?
Science is, when you replace the simple statement ''we don't know it'' by some obscure latinate terms, resulting in fewer people know that the scientists don't know about their subjects. (Nasty I am!)
<<These topics really are a part of linguistics, along with its sister topic, neurolinguistics. One does not have to learn a foreign language to understand the mechanics of language, ...>>
Yes, I agree! But that's not my point.
<<Guest; English alone has enough richness and variety, and the complexities of the language differ even within the United States.>>
But you stay within the English universe!
<<In any case, I refuse to learn a foreign language that I cannot use; I prefer studying topics that interest me, not topics that someone else decides for me. ;-)>>
In German, we have a term called ''Allgemeinbildung'', which translates to ''general education''. Attending the Gymnasium, you are supposed to aquire a high degree of that. This means that you consciously don't limit your interests to the things you need or most likely need, but exceeding that limits, even if you most likely don't need them for a special purpose. You need them to find out where you are in our world, not only in the sense of your physical position. I don't want to insult you, really, but you sound a little narrow minded to me. (BTW, what is practical in the knowledge that nasal languages (definition?) sound unpleasent to many people is or is not depending to physiological rather than to just mental issues?) To aquire that ''general education'' it is necessary to at least have some knowledge in two foreign languages, regardless if you need them or not. I need Englisch, but not French, but the knowledge of French helps to define myself as European. It helps to not make the history repeat itself. In former times there were wars between Germany and France, France was the hereditary enemy. If you spent time learning a language of a neighbour, you will most likely esteem him, and wars will be less likely. So, learning the language of a neighbour is a conclusion of our european history. But, as we all live in the same world and with airplains, even the remotest parts of the world are just some hours away, this applies to any country.
Someone else decided for me and for others that learning English (and French) is necessary to go to the university, to get a job, ...
If I would have thought the way you think, our conversation wouldn't be possible.
<<The notion of perceiving one tongue--or accent--as unpleasant, while others perceive the same tongue as pleasant, may also have a neuronal base: it is possible that an element of cognitive dissonance is in play.>>
Yes, of course, everything we feel, think and do has a neuronal basis.
Yes, it might be interesting if it also depends on the physis of the body rather than on your experience only.
What is an element of cognitive dissonance?
Science is, when you replace the simple statement ''we don't know it'' by some obscure latinate terms, resulting in fewer people know that the scientists don't know about their subjects. (Nasty I am!)
<<These topics really are a part of linguistics, along with its sister topic, neurolinguistics. One does not have to learn a foreign language to understand the mechanics of language, ...>>
Yes, I agree! But that's not my point.
<<Guest; English alone has enough richness and variety, and the complexities of the language differ even within the United States.>>
But you stay within the English universe!
<<In any case, I refuse to learn a foreign language that I cannot use; I prefer studying topics that interest me, not topics that someone else decides for me. ;-)>>
In German, we have a term called ''Allgemeinbildung'', which translates to ''general education''. Attending the Gymnasium, you are supposed to aquire a high degree of that. This means that you consciously don't limit your interests to the things you need or most likely need, but exceeding that limits, even if you most likely don't need them for a special purpose. You need them to find out where you are in our world, not only in the sense of your physical position. I don't want to insult you, really, but you sound a little narrow minded to me. (BTW, what is practical in the knowledge that nasal languages (definition?) sound unpleasent to many people is or is not depending to physiological rather than to just mental issues?) To aquire that ''general education'' it is necessary to at least have some knowledge in two foreign languages, regardless if you need them or not. I need Englisch, but not French, but the knowledge of French helps to define myself as European. It helps to not make the history repeat itself. In former times there were wars between Germany and France, France was the hereditary enemy. If you spent time learning a language of a neighbour, you will most likely esteem him, and wars will be less likely. So, learning the language of a neighbour is a conclusion of our european history. But, as we all live in the same world and with airplains, even the remotest parts of the world are just some hours away, this applies to any country.
Someone else decided for me and for others that learning English (and French) is necessary to go to the university, to get a job, ...
If I would have thought the way you think, our conversation wouldn't be possible.
Guest, I want you to know that I LOVED that French class--I really did. Remembering that class brings back some amusing anecdotes.
But I couldn't use it, and over the years, I've lost it. And if I were to re-learn it, I'd still have the terrible problem that I wouldn't be able to use it, except online. Online use of a foreign language fails to satisfy--at least, TO ME. As I have said before, the topic of language development in the brain is of more interest to me. Why is this revelant in ANTIMOON? We might be able to use the knowledge to improve our command of the English language, which is the whole raison d'etre of ANTIMOON.
Guest, in a very real way, you're lucky you're German. To use a metaphor, continental Europeans can throw a stone and hit somebody who speaks a different language. Few Europeans understand our dynamics, however. In the heartland, you can travel perhaps 100s of kilometers without finding someone who speaks a foreign language---even Spanish. The US is a very large, sparsely populated area.
I think it's great for you that you love foreign languages, I just don't think many Americans would share that interest because they wouldn't be able to use it in a satisfying way. (There are Americans who LOVE foreign languages, of course, but they're in a small minority).
At this point, I think perhaps we might agree to disagree. I posit the notion that a topic learned through love is a topic far more valuable than a topic learned through coercion.
But I couldn't use it, and over the years, I've lost it. And if I were to re-learn it, I'd still have the terrible problem that I wouldn't be able to use it, except online. Online use of a foreign language fails to satisfy--at least, TO ME. As I have said before, the topic of language development in the brain is of more interest to me. Why is this revelant in ANTIMOON? We might be able to use the knowledge to improve our command of the English language, which is the whole raison d'etre of ANTIMOON.
Guest, in a very real way, you're lucky you're German. To use a metaphor, continental Europeans can throw a stone and hit somebody who speaks a different language. Few Europeans understand our dynamics, however. In the heartland, you can travel perhaps 100s of kilometers without finding someone who speaks a foreign language---even Spanish. The US is a very large, sparsely populated area.
I think it's great for you that you love foreign languages, I just don't think many Americans would share that interest because they wouldn't be able to use it in a satisfying way. (There are Americans who LOVE foreign languages, of course, but they're in a small minority).
At this point, I think perhaps we might agree to disagree. I posit the notion that a topic learned through love is a topic far more valuable than a topic learned through coercion.
Guest2, you raised some important points that I intend to address, but cannot at this point due to time constraints: I have to go to work! Your patience is requested; I've got a lot to tell you.
Now, I'm in a Internet-Cafe in Frankfurt. My train leaves in a few minutes. I haven't internet at home. So you must be patient, too.
guest2: Here's the link for the antimoon thread about universities (around the world) and the languages that are offered.
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t10310-15.htm
The question you answered: I didn't ask it openly, but I wondered if it was possible to transfer to Gymnasium from Realschule.
About Homeschooling:
I suspect that regulations concerning homeschooling are different from state to state, so I don't have any good sites to offer. I called the board of education in my city about requirements a few years ago, but the regulations struck me as very relaxed.
Practicality and Languages: In my case, I wouldn't be able to hide my language efforts unless I locked my office and put a password on my computer, lol. Almost everyone has an opinion, I've learned, when it comes to language
Jasper: I don't know if we really ever forget our languages, but this seems to vary from person to person. It's interesting how almost everyone who posts at antimoon from the anglophone world is interested in languages, but not in the same way.
I know how hard it is to get practice in some languages (other than Spanish) unless you seek out opportunities. It's extremely difficult in small towns.
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t10310-15.htm
The question you answered: I didn't ask it openly, but I wondered if it was possible to transfer to Gymnasium from Realschule.
About Homeschooling:
I suspect that regulations concerning homeschooling are different from state to state, so I don't have any good sites to offer. I called the board of education in my city about requirements a few years ago, but the regulations struck me as very relaxed.
Practicality and Languages: In my case, I wouldn't be able to hide my language efforts unless I locked my office and put a password on my computer, lol. Almost everyone has an opinion, I've learned, when it comes to language
Jasper: I don't know if we really ever forget our languages, but this seems to vary from person to person. It's interesting how almost everyone who posts at antimoon from the anglophone world is interested in languages, but not in the same way.
I know how hard it is to get practice in some languages (other than Spanish) unless you seek out opportunities. It's extremely difficult in small towns.
>>Is there any validity to the Critical Period Hypothesis?
Just like sociolinguistics that tries to be descriptive...without words like dialect or unpleasant or stupid or low-class... linguistics itself also doesn't try impose rules.
But guys, can't you just be a bit more sensible about this? Every discipline in this field claims of coz that they are descriptive, and there will never be any market of being prescriptive. But I'm pretty sure that, just becoz everyone has different opinions, at times the greatest linguists of the time must already be imposing some theories upon its development without us noticing it. Just like America who supports democracy and liberty... (rant skipped)... the CPH doesn't say anything about adults' own aptitude to learn a lingo (say, a monolingual US Anglophone learning Spanish, yeah, what a commonest L1 learning case these days...)
it's only some of your stupid countrymen who believe that they can't learn a language well after adulthood. Instead, more intelligent Americans know that the CPH isn't even relevant.
My understanding is just that, in the case of "wild" children, they failed to acquire an L1 (L1, NOT L2) becoz they happened to have stayed in the wild and... without their (human, biological) parents/other people raising them using a human language. And this Critical period refers to ... shortly before puberty, and it has nothing to do with adult language acquisition. I can't deny some people's memory works rather badly after a certain age, but that's physiologically natural... why should a 50-year-old need a foreign language, if without a lot of motivating factors?
==
One example of the real culprits that might be deceiving linguistics students, I think, is how people criticized the audio-lingual method. I believe my German has improved somehow thru taking classes, but I ALSO believe, above all, the comprehensible input I got thru "allein lernen" has been even more helpful, when the teaching pace is slow.
Out of the linguistics context, audio-lingual isn't even a "school" of thought, but, for me, the only rule of thumb. How can't you use audios for a lingo? By audio-lingual, explicit face-to-face, teacher-to-student interactions are absent (this could be a downside, so to speak), but a combination of both... could actually be a plus.
I consulted my German teacher earlier, and she did imply that she wouldn't be teaching a lot of written language, and it's our own responsibility to read extensively outside class. Her only duty in class is to follow what a particular textbook offers (namely Themen, you know, German guys might even be familiar with this brand name); but just like your language teacher at college, I might get some extra help from people like her...so to speak.
Just like sociolinguistics that tries to be descriptive...without words like dialect or unpleasant or stupid or low-class... linguistics itself also doesn't try impose rules.
But guys, can't you just be a bit more sensible about this? Every discipline in this field claims of coz that they are descriptive, and there will never be any market of being prescriptive. But I'm pretty sure that, just becoz everyone has different opinions, at times the greatest linguists of the time must already be imposing some theories upon its development without us noticing it. Just like America who supports democracy and liberty... (rant skipped)... the CPH doesn't say anything about adults' own aptitude to learn a lingo (say, a monolingual US Anglophone learning Spanish, yeah, what a commonest L1 learning case these days...)
it's only some of your stupid countrymen who believe that they can't learn a language well after adulthood. Instead, more intelligent Americans know that the CPH isn't even relevant.
My understanding is just that, in the case of "wild" children, they failed to acquire an L1 (L1, NOT L2) becoz they happened to have stayed in the wild and... without their (human, biological) parents/other people raising them using a human language. And this Critical period refers to ... shortly before puberty, and it has nothing to do with adult language acquisition. I can't deny some people's memory works rather badly after a certain age, but that's physiologically natural... why should a 50-year-old need a foreign language, if without a lot of motivating factors?
==
One example of the real culprits that might be deceiving linguistics students, I think, is how people criticized the audio-lingual method. I believe my German has improved somehow thru taking classes, but I ALSO believe, above all, the comprehensible input I got thru "allein lernen" has been even more helpful, when the teaching pace is slow.
Out of the linguistics context, audio-lingual isn't even a "school" of thought, but, for me, the only rule of thumb. How can't you use audios for a lingo? By audio-lingual, explicit face-to-face, teacher-to-student interactions are absent (this could be a downside, so to speak), but a combination of both... could actually be a plus.
I consulted my German teacher earlier, and she did imply that she wouldn't be teaching a lot of written language, and it's our own responsibility to read extensively outside class. Her only duty in class is to follow what a particular textbook offers (namely Themen, you know, German guys might even be familiar with this brand name); but just like your language teacher at college, I might get some extra help from people like her...so to speak.
↑ Xie, can you take some constructive criticism? Your prose is extremely difficult to understand.
K. T. Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:45 pm GMT:
<< guest2: Here's the link for the antimoon thread about universities (around the world) and the languages that are offered.
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t10310-15.htm >>
Thanks for providing that link. Obviousliy, most american universities offer just a few languages. That's a pity.
<<The question you answered: I didn't ask it openly, but I wondered if it was possible to transfer to Gymnasium from Realschule.>>
Yes, that's possible. I did it. But I couldn't take a third foreign language because of that. That only would have been possible if I were in the Gymnasium from 5. class upwards. As far as I remember, this was not stated explicitly, but was a concequence of other constraints, but I can be wrong on that. There were only a few pupils doing so, as far as I remember.
<<About Homeschooling:
I suspect that regulations concerning homeschooling are different from state to state, so I don't have any good sites to offer. I called the board of education in my city about requirements a few years ago, but the regulations struck me as very relaxed.>>
That's what I expeceted. So there are people with very little effort and just good experiences concerning schools (homeschooling), and others, like me, who were forced to experience hell for almost all of their youth because they were bullied all the time, had nasty teachers, and parents, who didn't understand whats going on which finally caused immense family problems besides other problems, too.
Americans ''adore'' family. Christians ''adore'' family. But they allow schools with much bullying causing families to fall apart. They have weird moral expectation which penalize the ones who was forced to experience mobbing (i.e. got mentally raped) and never got a chance to experience a ''normal'' youth. They even don't realize the problems caused by bullying. They don't realize that bullying is massive (non-sexual, but mental) abuse of children. But they complain about sexual abuese all the time. For them, only sexual abuse is a very big sin. They aren't aware of the possibility of other very serious kinds of abuse. Abuse caused by bullying is much more likely then sexual abuse. A person who got bullyed is much more likely to do something which is considered ''criminal'' in terms of legislation or ''sin'' in terms of christian faith after leaving school. If you get bullyed you as a child, you are victim to much more serious insults and infringements for which the aggressors never get punished, because they (the aggressors) are children and because teachers and parents ignore the problems or incidences. At best, they consider them minor. That's because they are to ''moralistic'' to punisch children if they need to be punished because they bullyed their fellows. To be victim of bullying destroys your life chances!
That's one of the reasons why I called the white middleclass protestants mentioned hypocrites.
<<Practicality and Languages: In my case, I wouldn't be able to hide my language efforts unless I locked my office and put a password on my computer, lol. Almost everyone has an opinion, I've learned, when it comes to language>>
Wierd idea to hide language efforts! You should be proud of it!
<<Jasper: I don't know if we really ever forget our languages, but this seems to vary from person to person. It's interesting how almost everyone who posts at antimoon from the anglophone world is interested in languages, but not in the same way.>>
It's quite normal, when you don't need a certain knowedge or skill, that it ''fades'', that it comes out of direct access. Compare it to a computer and its memory hierarchy. But if you reoccupy yourself with that stuff, some of it will come back. This is a general experience, not just limited to language knowledge.
<<I know how hard it is to get practice in some languages (other than Spanish) unless you seek out opportunities. It's extremely difficult in small towns.>>
Yes! Or one is to timid of asking someone.
<< guest2: Here's the link for the antimoon thread about universities (around the world) and the languages that are offered.
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t10310-15.htm >>
Thanks for providing that link. Obviousliy, most american universities offer just a few languages. That's a pity.
<<The question you answered: I didn't ask it openly, but I wondered if it was possible to transfer to Gymnasium from Realschule.>>
Yes, that's possible. I did it. But I couldn't take a third foreign language because of that. That only would have been possible if I were in the Gymnasium from 5. class upwards. As far as I remember, this was not stated explicitly, but was a concequence of other constraints, but I can be wrong on that. There were only a few pupils doing so, as far as I remember.
<<About Homeschooling:
I suspect that regulations concerning homeschooling are different from state to state, so I don't have any good sites to offer. I called the board of education in my city about requirements a few years ago, but the regulations struck me as very relaxed.>>
That's what I expeceted. So there are people with very little effort and just good experiences concerning schools (homeschooling), and others, like me, who were forced to experience hell for almost all of their youth because they were bullied all the time, had nasty teachers, and parents, who didn't understand whats going on which finally caused immense family problems besides other problems, too.
Americans ''adore'' family. Christians ''adore'' family. But they allow schools with much bullying causing families to fall apart. They have weird moral expectation which penalize the ones who was forced to experience mobbing (i.e. got mentally raped) and never got a chance to experience a ''normal'' youth. They even don't realize the problems caused by bullying. They don't realize that bullying is massive (non-sexual, but mental) abuse of children. But they complain about sexual abuese all the time. For them, only sexual abuse is a very big sin. They aren't aware of the possibility of other very serious kinds of abuse. Abuse caused by bullying is much more likely then sexual abuse. A person who got bullyed is much more likely to do something which is considered ''criminal'' in terms of legislation or ''sin'' in terms of christian faith after leaving school. If you get bullyed you as a child, you are victim to much more serious insults and infringements for which the aggressors never get punished, because they (the aggressors) are children and because teachers and parents ignore the problems or incidences. At best, they consider them minor. That's because they are to ''moralistic'' to punisch children if they need to be punished because they bullyed their fellows. To be victim of bullying destroys your life chances!
That's one of the reasons why I called the white middleclass protestants mentioned hypocrites.
<<Practicality and Languages: In my case, I wouldn't be able to hide my language efforts unless I locked my office and put a password on my computer, lol. Almost everyone has an opinion, I've learned, when it comes to language>>
Wierd idea to hide language efforts! You should be proud of it!
<<Jasper: I don't know if we really ever forget our languages, but this seems to vary from person to person. It's interesting how almost everyone who posts at antimoon from the anglophone world is interested in languages, but not in the same way.>>
It's quite normal, when you don't need a certain knowedge or skill, that it ''fades'', that it comes out of direct access. Compare it to a computer and its memory hierarchy. But if you reoccupy yourself with that stuff, some of it will come back. This is a general experience, not just limited to language knowledge.
<<I know how hard it is to get practice in some languages (other than Spanish) unless you seek out opportunities. It's extremely difficult in small towns.>>
Yes! Or one is to timid of asking someone.
Jasper Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:59 pm GMT:
["Linguists" can be people who studied linguistics but are monolingual. They can also be people who speak two or more languages. It's pretty much open to your own interpretation.]
So, linguists are people who studied linguistics and can speak their mother tounge and maybe one or more foreign languages?
(Why not dropping the part about the foreign languages, it is useless here.)
or
Linguists can be either people who studied linguistics, regardless of the number of foreign languages they speak, or people who speak at least two foreign languages, regardless if they studied linguistics?
(That's not a good definition of linguist, because it's inherently misleading.)
<<NonSlav, I can think of at least two things wrong with your statement.
I'm assuming that you're a Continental European, and are aiming your comments at Americans. It's been my experience that Europeans often "project"-- they think that European solutions will necessarily work in America. I dispute this notion.>>
Maybe this is also the other way round!
<<European dynamics are vastly different from American ones. We have vast areas of unpopulated areas, and other vast areas of English-only speakers. Learning a foreign language really would be a waste of time for a lot of us because we wouldn't have the opportunity to practice it---unless the target language were to be Spanish.>>
So, implicitely, you speak from American dynamics, too, isn't it? But what you actually describe is the lack of language ''dynamics'' in the US. You also could call it the ''homogenity'' of the American language situation.
<<More importantly, there's the matter of personal interest.>>
Yes, but there are things which are important to everyone, regardless of the degree of interest a special person might pay to them. And regardless of the job he will once do. That's the notion of ''Bildung'' in contrast to ''Ausbildung''.
Bildung: Knowledge that enables you to find the right ways for your life, that allows you to fairly judge others and your environment or the things you deal with, that helps you to be a valuable human being.
Ausbildung: special knowledge for performing a certain profession of job, and the course to aquire that special knowledge.
These are my ad hoc definitions, admittedly, but based on my background knowledge of our educational system!
There are ca. 6000 languages in the world, so it's important to know and understand the problems caused by learning and practicing foreign languages, especially to ANY kind of linguist. This is background information for your job, you MUST have that information to be able to correctly judge the phenomenons you deal with when doing linguistics.
Exemple: I like the vowel harmony in Turkey Turkic. Actually, there are two kinds of vowal harmony: one with four forms (i, ΓΌ, dotless i, u) and one with just two (e, a). I especially like the one with four forms. I once read somewhere that most German native speakers learning Turkic have few problems with the one with four forms, but obviously have more problems with the one with just two.
It would be your job as (neuronal) linguist to tell us about the (neuronal) reasons for that observation.
If your're doing linguistics without actuall foreign language learning experience, you probably will not be aware of possible fields of investigation for your special section of linguistics. You will be like a blind person who needs someone taking his hands and guides him to wherever he likes (or doesn't like, maybe) to go.
<<At this juncture, an analogy would be in order here. Let's take the topic of computers, for example. Some students might be obsessed with learning a lot of computer languages---and be damned good at it-- while other students, utterly bored with computer programming languages, might be far more interested in learning the mechanics of the hardware. Does this make them lazy people? Of course not. Their interests on the topic of language lie in a different direction, that's all.>>
It happens that I'm studying informatics (computer science). I know some computer languages. I have my favorite, it's Pascal. I like machine langueage (Z80), too (I can write code it it). Interestingly, if you know one of them, it is much easier to learn the others. As I once read (here in Antimoon?) this is also valid for human language-learning. I have some knowledge in a hardware description language, too, VHDL, which is a development of the DoD! Thanks, America, for that wonderful tool! I was tutor in a practical course for basic hardware design using VHDL for three terms. Unless you consider the movement of the electrons (and ''holes'') as ''mechanics'', there is nothing ''mechanical'' in electronical hardware. And I'm interested in human languages, too.
["Linguists" can be people who studied linguistics but are monolingual. They can also be people who speak two or more languages. It's pretty much open to your own interpretation.]
So, linguists are people who studied linguistics and can speak their mother tounge and maybe one or more foreign languages?
(Why not dropping the part about the foreign languages, it is useless here.)
or
Linguists can be either people who studied linguistics, regardless of the number of foreign languages they speak, or people who speak at least two foreign languages, regardless if they studied linguistics?
(That's not a good definition of linguist, because it's inherently misleading.)
<<NonSlav, I can think of at least two things wrong with your statement.
I'm assuming that you're a Continental European, and are aiming your comments at Americans. It's been my experience that Europeans often "project"-- they think that European solutions will necessarily work in America. I dispute this notion.>>
Maybe this is also the other way round!
<<European dynamics are vastly different from American ones. We have vast areas of unpopulated areas, and other vast areas of English-only speakers. Learning a foreign language really would be a waste of time for a lot of us because we wouldn't have the opportunity to practice it---unless the target language were to be Spanish.>>
So, implicitely, you speak from American dynamics, too, isn't it? But what you actually describe is the lack of language ''dynamics'' in the US. You also could call it the ''homogenity'' of the American language situation.
<<More importantly, there's the matter of personal interest.>>
Yes, but there are things which are important to everyone, regardless of the degree of interest a special person might pay to them. And regardless of the job he will once do. That's the notion of ''Bildung'' in contrast to ''Ausbildung''.
Bildung: Knowledge that enables you to find the right ways for your life, that allows you to fairly judge others and your environment or the things you deal with, that helps you to be a valuable human being.
Ausbildung: special knowledge for performing a certain profession of job, and the course to aquire that special knowledge.
These are my ad hoc definitions, admittedly, but based on my background knowledge of our educational system!
There are ca. 6000 languages in the world, so it's important to know and understand the problems caused by learning and practicing foreign languages, especially to ANY kind of linguist. This is background information for your job, you MUST have that information to be able to correctly judge the phenomenons you deal with when doing linguistics.
Exemple: I like the vowel harmony in Turkey Turkic. Actually, there are two kinds of vowal harmony: one with four forms (i, ΓΌ, dotless i, u) and one with just two (e, a). I especially like the one with four forms. I once read somewhere that most German native speakers learning Turkic have few problems with the one with four forms, but obviously have more problems with the one with just two.
It would be your job as (neuronal) linguist to tell us about the (neuronal) reasons for that observation.
If your're doing linguistics without actuall foreign language learning experience, you probably will not be aware of possible fields of investigation for your special section of linguistics. You will be like a blind person who needs someone taking his hands and guides him to wherever he likes (or doesn't like, maybe) to go.
<<At this juncture, an analogy would be in order here. Let's take the topic of computers, for example. Some students might be obsessed with learning a lot of computer languages---and be damned good at it-- while other students, utterly bored with computer programming languages, might be far more interested in learning the mechanics of the hardware. Does this make them lazy people? Of course not. Their interests on the topic of language lie in a different direction, that's all.>>
It happens that I'm studying informatics (computer science). I know some computer languages. I have my favorite, it's Pascal. I like machine langueage (Z80), too (I can write code it it). Interestingly, if you know one of them, it is much easier to learn the others. As I once read (here in Antimoon?) this is also valid for human language-learning. I have some knowledge in a hardware description language, too, VHDL, which is a development of the DoD! Thanks, America, for that wonderful tool! I was tutor in a practical course for basic hardware design using VHDL for three terms. Unless you consider the movement of the electrons (and ''holes'') as ''mechanics'', there is nothing ''mechanical'' in electronical hardware. And I'm interested in human languages, too.
Jasper Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:51 pm GMT:
<<Guest2: I found a link for you. THIS is what I'm most interested in, not learning a certain foreign language per se. To wit:
http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields-neuro.cfm>>
Thanks for that link!
<<Guest2: I found a link for you. THIS is what I'm most interested in, not learning a certain foreign language per se. To wit:
http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields-neuro.cfm>>
Thanks for that link!
Jasper Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:10 am GMT:
<<[Learning a foreign language is never a waste of time, even if you don't practice it].
Guest2, I'd beg to differ. I had two years of French in the 70s--and loved every single minute of it! But I had no opportunity to practice it with anybody. Over the years, I lost it; nowadays, I remember very little French.
As KT has correctly noted, Americans are practical minded. If we cannot use something, we don't want to learn it. Unless you love it, what's the use of learning it?>>
Being practical was a requitement in the early times of the US. That explains why Americans are practical minded. But we live in the twenty first century, not in the nineteenth or earlier, and things have changed a lot in the last century. (Actually, more than they have changed throughout the whole history before.) Of course, there might be things which never change and being practical will be still necessary in certain situations, but you don't live in a pioneering society anymore. Therefore, being practical is only one of many requirements of modern society.
<<By the way, practicing a foreign language online would only be useful for the purposes of written language, and useless for conversation....>>
You will come across written language much more likely than spoken language, at least this is valid for the major languages of the world.
Reading is more likely than writing. We write for those who read! That's why there shouldn't be any orthography reform!
You can read a whole book in just a few hours, but it's very unlikely that you speak to someone for several hours. (And if you would do it, your audience would stop listening after ca. 90 min.)
<<[Learning a foreign language is never a waste of time, even if you don't practice it].
Guest2, I'd beg to differ. I had two years of French in the 70s--and loved every single minute of it! But I had no opportunity to practice it with anybody. Over the years, I lost it; nowadays, I remember very little French.
As KT has correctly noted, Americans are practical minded. If we cannot use something, we don't want to learn it. Unless you love it, what's the use of learning it?>>
Being practical was a requitement in the early times of the US. That explains why Americans are practical minded. But we live in the twenty first century, not in the nineteenth or earlier, and things have changed a lot in the last century. (Actually, more than they have changed throughout the whole history before.) Of course, there might be things which never change and being practical will be still necessary in certain situations, but you don't live in a pioneering society anymore. Therefore, being practical is only one of many requirements of modern society.
<<By the way, practicing a foreign language online would only be useful for the purposes of written language, and useless for conversation....>>
You will come across written language much more likely than spoken language, at least this is valid for the major languages of the world.
Reading is more likely than writing. We write for those who read! That's why there shouldn't be any orthography reform!
You can read a whole book in just a few hours, but it's very unlikely that you speak to someone for several hours. (And if you would do it, your audience would stop listening after ca. 90 min.)
Guest2, you asked about Cognitive Dissonance. A complete account of it would ramble on for pages, and would not be tolerated by the moderators, so I'll have to give you an abridged version.
When we grow up, all the perceptions we have are combined into a sort of gestalt of an accepted norm. Anything we perceive after childhood is judged through the viewpoint of accepted norm. If we perceive something similar, our brains register a MATCH. If we perceive something dissimilar, our brains register a MISMATCH; if this mismatch is strong enough, it causes a jarring sensation in the brain, that registers a most unpleasant emotion.
This cognitive dissonance seems to branch into every area of our lives. To give you just one illustrative example, I think you'll find very few Germans who really love Indian music. To give another, Germans are probably puzzled by the willing servitude of Islamic women, and bewildered and amused by religious fanaticism in certain quarters of the US.
In respect to languages, cognitive dissonance is probably neuronal in origin. One study was done with 6-9 month old babies. It was noticed that babies growing up in Swedish families showed significantly more neuronal excitement when hearing Swedish than when hearing Mandarin Chinese. It was deduced that neuronal activity concerning language development begins very early in life.
How is this germane to our discussion? Questions were raised about why one dialect (or language) is perceived as pleasant by one listener, while being perceived as unpleasant by another; cognitive dissonance may prove to be the answer.
Let's take the example of Southern American English. British English speakers tend to find this dialect pleasant, while General American English speakers deem it unpleasant. A peek inside the vowel structure reveals clues. BrEng speakers and SAE speakers both tend to dipthongize the long -A sound in the word "bake"; GAE speakers do not. This similarity in vowel structure registers a MATCH for the BrEng speaker, and a MISMATCH for the GAE speaker, so the GAE perceives SAE as "unpleasant".
On the other side of the coin, some GAE dialects dipthongize the short-a sound in words like "back", "had", etc. (This is sometimes denied, but it's very obvious. Have you heard Sarah Palin speak? She does it all the time). Neither SAE speakers nor BrEng speakers dipthongize that vowel, so it registers as a MISMATCH in the SAE brain. This is one reason why SAE speakers perceive GAE dialects as "nasty".
So you have the odd dichotomy of SAE--an American dialect--closer to British English in some key aspects than it is to General American English, and the curious enigma of SAE speakers and GAE speakers hating each others' dialects.
This cognitive dissonance might transfer to the topic of foreign languages, too. Is it not a fact that we tend to prefer languages closer to our own in nature? A German might prefer the sounds of Swedish, for example, to the nasal, discordant sounds of a language such as Cambodian or Tagalog. For my own part, I find Swedish--a tongue closer to my own--a beautiful tongue, while Cambodian--an aggressively nasal tongue--absolutely unbearable to hear.
...which leads us to nasal tongues. Guest2, most tongues on the Earth are not nasal; the few nasal tongues you find seem to be focused in SouthEast Asia. If we want to accept cognitive dissonance as a fact, most listeners around the world who speak in nonnasal tongues would necessarily perceive these nasal tongues as "unpleasant". I know I certainly do...
When we grow up, all the perceptions we have are combined into a sort of gestalt of an accepted norm. Anything we perceive after childhood is judged through the viewpoint of accepted norm. If we perceive something similar, our brains register a MATCH. If we perceive something dissimilar, our brains register a MISMATCH; if this mismatch is strong enough, it causes a jarring sensation in the brain, that registers a most unpleasant emotion.
This cognitive dissonance seems to branch into every area of our lives. To give you just one illustrative example, I think you'll find very few Germans who really love Indian music. To give another, Germans are probably puzzled by the willing servitude of Islamic women, and bewildered and amused by religious fanaticism in certain quarters of the US.
In respect to languages, cognitive dissonance is probably neuronal in origin. One study was done with 6-9 month old babies. It was noticed that babies growing up in Swedish families showed significantly more neuronal excitement when hearing Swedish than when hearing Mandarin Chinese. It was deduced that neuronal activity concerning language development begins very early in life.
How is this germane to our discussion? Questions were raised about why one dialect (or language) is perceived as pleasant by one listener, while being perceived as unpleasant by another; cognitive dissonance may prove to be the answer.
Let's take the example of Southern American English. British English speakers tend to find this dialect pleasant, while General American English speakers deem it unpleasant. A peek inside the vowel structure reveals clues. BrEng speakers and SAE speakers both tend to dipthongize the long -A sound in the word "bake"; GAE speakers do not. This similarity in vowel structure registers a MATCH for the BrEng speaker, and a MISMATCH for the GAE speaker, so the GAE perceives SAE as "unpleasant".
On the other side of the coin, some GAE dialects dipthongize the short-a sound in words like "back", "had", etc. (This is sometimes denied, but it's very obvious. Have you heard Sarah Palin speak? She does it all the time). Neither SAE speakers nor BrEng speakers dipthongize that vowel, so it registers as a MISMATCH in the SAE brain. This is one reason why SAE speakers perceive GAE dialects as "nasty".
So you have the odd dichotomy of SAE--an American dialect--closer to British English in some key aspects than it is to General American English, and the curious enigma of SAE speakers and GAE speakers hating each others' dialects.
This cognitive dissonance might transfer to the topic of foreign languages, too. Is it not a fact that we tend to prefer languages closer to our own in nature? A German might prefer the sounds of Swedish, for example, to the nasal, discordant sounds of a language such as Cambodian or Tagalog. For my own part, I find Swedish--a tongue closer to my own--a beautiful tongue, while Cambodian--an aggressively nasal tongue--absolutely unbearable to hear.
...which leads us to nasal tongues. Guest2, most tongues on the Earth are not nasal; the few nasal tongues you find seem to be focused in SouthEast Asia. If we want to accept cognitive dissonance as a fact, most listeners around the world who speak in nonnasal tongues would necessarily perceive these nasal tongues as "unpleasant". I know I certainly do...
Your explanations are very interesting, Jasper. You point out some cerebral ''mechanism'' providing for the physiological basic of ''like'' and ''dislike''. (It is most likely that such an mechanism exists, because we are based on physiology. So, form this point of view, you don't surprise me.)
<<This cognitive dissonance seems to branch into every area of our lives.>>
Yes, I agree absolutely!
I was brought up in a way that my mother was somewhat nasty if I didn't like something she considered as a thing I must accept, if done by others, even if I dislike it. I dimly remember that at that time, I wondered if it is ''physiological'' that I dislike it an my dislike must be accepted. And because it's based in my physiology, one should force others/I should have the right to force others to stop doing that what is disliked.
So, what would be the social and juristical consequences of the existance of this cerebral mechanism? How would the disregard of the possible existance of such a mechanism (someone forces you to accept something you dislike, see, it's a kind of violation, regardless if its physical, optical, tactical, or olfactorical) be affect law and legal practice? (Remember, you want to be practical.)
Remember, it's also possible to become familiar with or even addicted to things you first dislike!
I don't actually know Indian music. I don't like indian cultur from that what I know about India. It's a very underdeveloped country with a very unsocial and unfair social system. But regardless of that, a few days ago, I checked out wikipedia for informations on languages spoken there.
''willing servitude of Islamic women''?
Islamic women in Europe behave just like other european women, I think.
''bewildered and amused by religious fanaticism in certain quarters of the US''?
I never was in the USA. Religious fanatism is found in many places in the world.
I don't understand what these two points should proove. I would like to draw a border line regarding cerebral mechanisms at the one hand and things like educated behaviour or religious fanatism at the other. If you don't do that, you must give up the notion of criminal behaviour and sin. Then presumbly everything can be explained with such mechnisms, leading to the concequence that it would be unfair to punisch criminal behaviour especially concerning death penalty. (BTW, I do support death penalty, but not in the american way.)
<<In respect to languages, cognitive dissonance is probably neuronal in origin. ...>>
Yes, most likely. We are based on physiology, and neurons are part of that.
I once heard to studends talking a foreign language, which sounded very nice. I asked them about it, and they told me it was Swedisch. Water to your mills! If you attend basic linguistic lectures, you will be told that language learning begins very early in life, that's very obvious, even if you don't do neuronal research for prooving it. (I would like to give you a citation form Josef Weizenbaum(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Weizenbaum) concerning ''sientific perception'', but unfortunatly the text is not right at hand.)
The research you mention may be good for a lot of things, but surely is not practical in the everyday sense.
<<How is this germane to our discussion?>>
Cognitive dissonance may also be dangerous if misused. Meaning exposing children to sensations they should find positive by a fanatic dictator or religious ideology.
<<Have you heard Sarah Palin speak?>>
Who, to hell, is Sarah Palin?
I came across that name at startup of internet explorer several times, but never read about her.
<<So you have the odd dichotomy of SAE--an American dialect--closer to British English in some key aspects than it is to General American English, and the curious enigma of SAE speakers and GAE speakers hating each others' dialects.>>
Maybe that there're other reasons, too. Or does your mechanism explains all and everything? Maybe!
<<This cognitive dissonance might transfer to the topic of foreign languages, too. Is it not a fact that we tend to prefer languages closer to our own in nature?>>
Yes and no!
As you probably might now, Dutch is very close to English and German, but most of them dislike Dutch, see several Antimoon threads.
<<A German might prefer the sounds of Swedish, for example, to the nasal, discordant sounds of a language such as Cambodian or Tagalog. For my own part, I find Swedish--a tongue closer to my own--a beautiful tongue, while Cambodian--an aggressively nasal tongue--absolutely unbearable to hear.>>
I never had the chance to hear Cambodian or Tagalog. Define nasal tongue! Obviously, it's not one with nasal consonants like n, m, ng, etc, as most of the languages have them.
<<This cognitive dissonance seems to branch into every area of our lives.>>
Yes, I agree absolutely!
I was brought up in a way that my mother was somewhat nasty if I didn't like something she considered as a thing I must accept, if done by others, even if I dislike it. I dimly remember that at that time, I wondered if it is ''physiological'' that I dislike it an my dislike must be accepted. And because it's based in my physiology, one should force others/I should have the right to force others to stop doing that what is disliked.
So, what would be the social and juristical consequences of the existance of this cerebral mechanism? How would the disregard of the possible existance of such a mechanism (someone forces you to accept something you dislike, see, it's a kind of violation, regardless if its physical, optical, tactical, or olfactorical) be affect law and legal practice? (Remember, you want to be practical.)
Remember, it's also possible to become familiar with or even addicted to things you first dislike!
I don't actually know Indian music. I don't like indian cultur from that what I know about India. It's a very underdeveloped country with a very unsocial and unfair social system. But regardless of that, a few days ago, I checked out wikipedia for informations on languages spoken there.
''willing servitude of Islamic women''?
Islamic women in Europe behave just like other european women, I think.
''bewildered and amused by religious fanaticism in certain quarters of the US''?
I never was in the USA. Religious fanatism is found in many places in the world.
I don't understand what these two points should proove. I would like to draw a border line regarding cerebral mechanisms at the one hand and things like educated behaviour or religious fanatism at the other. If you don't do that, you must give up the notion of criminal behaviour and sin. Then presumbly everything can be explained with such mechnisms, leading to the concequence that it would be unfair to punisch criminal behaviour especially concerning death penalty. (BTW, I do support death penalty, but not in the american way.)
<<In respect to languages, cognitive dissonance is probably neuronal in origin. ...>>
Yes, most likely. We are based on physiology, and neurons are part of that.
I once heard to studends talking a foreign language, which sounded very nice. I asked them about it, and they told me it was Swedisch. Water to your mills! If you attend basic linguistic lectures, you will be told that language learning begins very early in life, that's very obvious, even if you don't do neuronal research for prooving it. (I would like to give you a citation form Josef Weizenbaum(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Weizenbaum) concerning ''sientific perception'', but unfortunatly the text is not right at hand.)
The research you mention may be good for a lot of things, but surely is not practical in the everyday sense.
<<How is this germane to our discussion?>>
Cognitive dissonance may also be dangerous if misused. Meaning exposing children to sensations they should find positive by a fanatic dictator or religious ideology.
<<Have you heard Sarah Palin speak?>>
Who, to hell, is Sarah Palin?
I came across that name at startup of internet explorer several times, but never read about her.
<<So you have the odd dichotomy of SAE--an American dialect--closer to British English in some key aspects than it is to General American English, and the curious enigma of SAE speakers and GAE speakers hating each others' dialects.>>
Maybe that there're other reasons, too. Or does your mechanism explains all and everything? Maybe!
<<This cognitive dissonance might transfer to the topic of foreign languages, too. Is it not a fact that we tend to prefer languages closer to our own in nature?>>
Yes and no!
As you probably might now, Dutch is very close to English and German, but most of them dislike Dutch, see several Antimoon threads.
<<A German might prefer the sounds of Swedish, for example, to the nasal, discordant sounds of a language such as Cambodian or Tagalog. For my own part, I find Swedish--a tongue closer to my own--a beautiful tongue, while Cambodian--an aggressively nasal tongue--absolutely unbearable to hear.>>
I never had the chance to hear Cambodian or Tagalog. Define nasal tongue! Obviously, it's not one with nasal consonants like n, m, ng, etc, as most of the languages have them.