As we more or less concluded in class, language is a major staple of any culture, and differences in languages give separate meanings to the same concepts in various cultures. I personally tend to take a more relativist approach to the language-and-culture debate; in my view, speaking another language is not merely a matter of translation, but rather a whole new method of thinking in some respects. I recall when I first started studying Italian in middle school, and how surprised I was when I learned that the structure of the sentences, rather than just the words, had to be changed. Before that age, I had never really been exposed to languages other than English, and I suddenly realized just how impermanent my beliefs about communication were.
In a more practical sense, understanding the cultural differences embedded in languages is a necessary tool for communicating across borders, especially in a business and marketing sense. To take on such tasks, a translator cannot simply translate words; they must also know how to instinctively appeal to an entirely different population.
Take an example from the film industry. The James Bond series, with its 22 films, has developed a global fan base. Its exciting storylines and exotic locales have transcended cultural barriers; however, the numerous English phrases and idioms used in the films often cannot be translated. So, when 1987’s The Living Daylights was released, the title had to be changed in various countries to something more recognizable. In France, it was released as Tuer n’est pas Jouer, meaning Death is Not a Game. In Spain, it became Alta Tensión, or High Tension. In Sweden, it was titled Iskallt Uppdrag, meaning Ice Cold Mission. And in Greece, the title was Me to Daktylo sti Skandali, which approximately means Having the Finger on the Trigger.
Now, while each of these titles may have some special significance within their realm, they cannot replicate the original intent behind the title The Living Daylights. However, on a more concrete level, the change in name must have also affected how the film was marketed. Certainly a film called High Tension would present a different theme than one called Ice Cold Mission. Different commercials would have to be shot, different posters would have to be drawn up, and ultimately, the audience’s expectations of the film differ between countries.
If you think that’s fun, try translating Octopussy.
I think it’s clear that differences in words, phrases, and sentence structures contribute to variation between cultures and identities. The order in which sentences are formed affects the order in which thoughts are formed, which goes on to shape the psyche of an entire society. While I hesitate to use vocabulary of restriction to describe lingual variation, its effect on our identity in undeniable.
Perry Landesberg
Monday, September 28, 2009
Language: The Mortar of Culture
In so many ways, AU is one of the best places to study something like cross-cultural communication. A short walk through the LA quad or MGC may, at times, resemble one through an airport terminal due to the breadth of cultures represented here. Regardless of exact numbers, nearly every major culture is well-accounted for and pronounced here on campus. The funny thing about this, though, is exactly what distinguishes these "non-Americans" from "Americans". In many cases, they dress and act just like any normal American teenager would, listening to the same music and engaging in the same types of activities. More often than not, it is language which sets them apart.
While the international students here are very friendly and all speak very good English, they do also tend to keep more to themselves, a practice that is marked by them speaking their own languages from home. While, unless they are speaking Spanish, I oftentimes cannot even come close to discerning what they talk about in groups, sometimes it is actually quite easy. Being that they are immersed in our "American" culture, where nearly everything hinges on English, very often they will mix in English words in the context of whatever else they are speaking. The reason for this, I believe, is that they are talking about things pertinent to their respective experiences here at AU and may therefore find it odd or less natural to talk about or refer to these things in any other language. Contrarily, if they are discussing things that take place in their home country or relate to their own cultures, they would likely be far less inclined to use English at any length.
This example, I believe, is a perfect example of just how significant language is to our study and understanding of culture. Here at AU, which while very diverse is still clearly American (obviously), a common language is in many cases the only thing students who have traveled thousands of miles have to connect themselves with home and their native culture. Language really is the mortar of culture in general, connecting and providing a framework for the building of something more complex and universal.
-Dylan Parker
While the international students here are very friendly and all speak very good English, they do also tend to keep more to themselves, a practice that is marked by them speaking their own languages from home. While, unless they are speaking Spanish, I oftentimes cannot even come close to discerning what they talk about in groups, sometimes it is actually quite easy. Being that they are immersed in our "American" culture, where nearly everything hinges on English, very often they will mix in English words in the context of whatever else they are speaking. The reason for this, I believe, is that they are talking about things pertinent to their respective experiences here at AU and may therefore find it odd or less natural to talk about or refer to these things in any other language. Contrarily, if they are discussing things that take place in their home country or relate to their own cultures, they would likely be far less inclined to use English at any length.
This example, I believe, is a perfect example of just how significant language is to our study and understanding of culture. Here at AU, which while very diverse is still clearly American (obviously), a common language is in many cases the only thing students who have traveled thousands of miles have to connect themselves with home and their native culture. Language really is the mortar of culture in general, connecting and providing a framework for the building of something more complex and universal.
-Dylan Parker
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Lost in Translation
This most recent week was eventful in class. There was a massive amount of material covered, combined with the speaker. All that said, I found most of it intuitive and expected. I really wish we would have talked about one point a bit longer though. How a person can use language to tailor their message to differing audiences? Here's an example of what I mean:
The club which I help run is hosting a controversial speaker in 2 weeks. He'll be talking of the virtues of a purely free market health care system. This event is targeted at a number of groups, rather than our bread-and-butter constituency of the DC Forum For Freedom. The targeted groups include: students, professors and staff of the SPA, Democrats, Republicans, community members, press, and other smaller groups. Clearly, each of these groups comes from a differing background and would have a differing motive to come to the event. Because they have differing motivations, a group would want to target each group with differing language. How does anyone do that? It seems complicated, and time consuming.
No, not with a little thought into the motivations of each group and some background in what we learned today. AUSFL is gifted to have a number of members who have either taken Cross Cultural Communication or have backgrounds in marketing(which draws heavily from it). We have a basic game plan to bring out each of the targeted groups. First, to bring out the SPA, we'll call the event a great place to direct students for class projects. We'll also use a more formal language in the communication, playing on our position as the best-led political organization on campus. This language allows for the high-context respect factor to take more of a role, leading to a greater likelihood for the professors to recommend the event.
Democrats and Republicans will get similar but different treatment in the field of language. We'll attempt to play upon each group's emotions with controversial wording, hoping to stir either anger or fear. Logically, the primary motivation for each group to come out would be to oppose us, and emotion is one of the greatest motivators in this case. This goes double for community members, because it takes even more emotion to have people even walk a block to see a speaker.
The final group will need a 180 in language from the prior 3. When addressing the press a group wants to be as low context, detail oriented as possible in their language. We'll want to lay out each and every detail, including contact information and how to get to campus were they to want to cover the event. This will be the first event where we'll be actively engaging the press, so some trial and error will be inevitable.
This ends my case study in the way I'll be using language to tailor a single message to many groups.
Nick
The club which I help run is hosting a controversial speaker in 2 weeks. He'll be talking of the virtues of a purely free market health care system. This event is targeted at a number of groups, rather than our bread-and-butter constituency of the DC Forum For Freedom. The targeted groups include: students, professors and staff of the SPA, Democrats, Republicans, community members, press, and other smaller groups. Clearly, each of these groups comes from a differing background and would have a differing motive to come to the event. Because they have differing motivations, a group would want to target each group with differing language. How does anyone do that? It seems complicated, and time consuming.
No, not with a little thought into the motivations of each group and some background in what we learned today. AUSFL is gifted to have a number of members who have either taken Cross Cultural Communication or have backgrounds in marketing(which draws heavily from it). We have a basic game plan to bring out each of the targeted groups. First, to bring out the SPA, we'll call the event a great place to direct students for class projects. We'll also use a more formal language in the communication, playing on our position as the best-led political organization on campus. This language allows for the high-context respect factor to take more of a role, leading to a greater likelihood for the professors to recommend the event.
Democrats and Republicans will get similar but different treatment in the field of language. We'll attempt to play upon each group's emotions with controversial wording, hoping to stir either anger or fear. Logically, the primary motivation for each group to come out would be to oppose us, and emotion is one of the greatest motivators in this case. This goes double for community members, because it takes even more emotion to have people even walk a block to see a speaker.
The final group will need a 180 in language from the prior 3. When addressing the press a group wants to be as low context, detail oriented as possible in their language. We'll want to lay out each and every detail, including contact information and how to get to campus were they to want to cover the event. This will be the first event where we'll be actively engaging the press, so some trial and error will be inevitable.
This ends my case study in the way I'll be using language to tailor a single message to many groups.
Nick
Language is a Prison House
I wholeheartedly believe that this statement is true. But I want to examine it from a different angle. Language defines how we think and perceive the world around us. But I want to focus on how language locks us into a community. I have an interesting anecdote that pertains to this concept of language as a prison house.
One of my nephews was born legally deaf. And I know you might be thinking how the story ends (but just hear me out). His ears are malformed and he has no ear canal, no opening to let the sound in. And yet, with a hearing aid he can hear 80% of what a hearing person can. So as a toddler he learned to sign. It was only basics, I don’t think he ever got to a point of making a complete sentence. Then he got his really good hearing aid and my sister had to decide whether or not to send him to a ‘sign oriented’ or ‘regular’ class for preschool. Either one runs major risks. If he were to go to the sign class, he would obviously rely mostly on sign and not work on his speaking skills. If he were to go to the ‘regular’ class, he could get left behind, even with special help just based on his inability to hear (not his intelligence).
As a parent this is a pretty big decision (to say the least0. The deaf community is wonderful, but, it is a small community with limited opportunity. My sister would have to learn a new language just to communicate with her son. But could it possibly be worth it to risk him not learning any language at all? Imagine having no means to communicate, in any language.
My nephew did not go to the school that specialized in sign. He instead goes to a special class in a regular school that is just for kids with hearing ‘impairments’. They do not use any sign language in his class. His communications skills are improving, but if you didn’t have practice talking with him it would be difficult to understand him. Trust me, he has no problem expressing himself but it has taken a lot of work and speech therapy to get to that point.
Language is a prison house in that it defines our community and shapes our identity. Sometimes I think that we forget (because all of us know English) how many people in the world feel cut off from the greater international community because they only speak Serbian or Quechua or Hausa or Sign Language. We are fortunate, I suppose, that the ‘English speaking’ prison cell is at least very large.
One of my nephews was born legally deaf. And I know you might be thinking how the story ends (but just hear me out). His ears are malformed and he has no ear canal, no opening to let the sound in. And yet, with a hearing aid he can hear 80% of what a hearing person can. So as a toddler he learned to sign. It was only basics, I don’t think he ever got to a point of making a complete sentence. Then he got his really good hearing aid and my sister had to decide whether or not to send him to a ‘sign oriented’ or ‘regular’ class for preschool. Either one runs major risks. If he were to go to the sign class, he would obviously rely mostly on sign and not work on his speaking skills. If he were to go to the ‘regular’ class, he could get left behind, even with special help just based on his inability to hear (not his intelligence).
As a parent this is a pretty big decision (to say the least0. The deaf community is wonderful, but, it is a small community with limited opportunity. My sister would have to learn a new language just to communicate with her son. But could it possibly be worth it to risk him not learning any language at all? Imagine having no means to communicate, in any language.
My nephew did not go to the school that specialized in sign. He instead goes to a special class in a regular school that is just for kids with hearing ‘impairments’. They do not use any sign language in his class. His communications skills are improving, but if you didn’t have practice talking with him it would be difficult to understand him. Trust me, he has no problem expressing himself but it has taken a lot of work and speech therapy to get to that point.
Language is a prison house in that it defines our community and shapes our identity. Sometimes I think that we forget (because all of us know English) how many people in the world feel cut off from the greater international community because they only speak Serbian or Quechua or Hausa or Sign Language. We are fortunate, I suppose, that the ‘English speaking’ prison cell is at least very large.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
An Unhealthy State of Affairs
I think it’s safe to say that by this point, both the supporters and opponents of health care reform have pulled out nearly every argument that can logically (and illogically) be made. It’s been anything but an orderly process. Of particular note is the “name-calling” aspect of it, and the presumptions each side tends to make of the other. In some cases, those of us on the sidelines are forced to wonder what led them to such astonishing conclusions.
The Right, it seems, has been the more vocal half in this debate. What started as a debate over budget concerns and patient rights has ballooned into accusations of socialism, comparisons to the Nazi Party, and persistent rumors of “death panels” tasked with culling the gene pool of the sick and the elderly. The Left, while certainly less inflammatory, has not been perfectly balanced either. They have painted all opponents of the public option as uninformed, easily-led, and boorish.
Both sets of sentiments arise from differing views of what the American identity represents. From the conservative end, the United States is a bastion of free will, the highest expression of which is a perfectly independent market. Only market competition, they argue, will generate the most effective system of governance, a trend that continues into the realm of health care. To that end, all those who oppose the free market are akin to America’s 20th-century enemies, who have characteristically been portrayed as “overgoverned”. However, under closer inspection, such comparisons make little to no sense; the parallel makes wild assumptions about the intent and motivation of left-wingers, and it displays a great lack of understanding of Nazi or Soviet society.
From the progressive perspective, the United States’ greatest achievement has been to provide more care and safety to those in need than any other society in history. It only seems logical that life-saving medical treatment should be among those services. However, they often fail to recognize, or intentionally downplay, the cost of these services, and they overestimate how effectively such treatment could be administered when regulated by the federal government.
Looking back at the health care fight, I would say that the political flame war was initiated by actual policy differences, and did not incorporate identity issues until later. Though contrary ideals of American identity certainly acted as a catalyst for the conflict, as did partisan maneuvering, the debate wouldn’t have reached this point if the two sides did not actually disagree on funding and organizational matters. It can be hard to consider the actual debate taking place amid the pandemonium created by the opposing camps. Such a ruckus is terribly irresponsible, but sadly does not lack precedent.
Perry Landesberg
The Right, it seems, has been the more vocal half in this debate. What started as a debate over budget concerns and patient rights has ballooned into accusations of socialism, comparisons to the Nazi Party, and persistent rumors of “death panels” tasked with culling the gene pool of the sick and the elderly. The Left, while certainly less inflammatory, has not been perfectly balanced either. They have painted all opponents of the public option as uninformed, easily-led, and boorish.
Both sets of sentiments arise from differing views of what the American identity represents. From the conservative end, the United States is a bastion of free will, the highest expression of which is a perfectly independent market. Only market competition, they argue, will generate the most effective system of governance, a trend that continues into the realm of health care. To that end, all those who oppose the free market are akin to America’s 20th-century enemies, who have characteristically been portrayed as “overgoverned”. However, under closer inspection, such comparisons make little to no sense; the parallel makes wild assumptions about the intent and motivation of left-wingers, and it displays a great lack of understanding of Nazi or Soviet society.
From the progressive perspective, the United States’ greatest achievement has been to provide more care and safety to those in need than any other society in history. It only seems logical that life-saving medical treatment should be among those services. However, they often fail to recognize, or intentionally downplay, the cost of these services, and they overestimate how effectively such treatment could be administered when regulated by the federal government.
Looking back at the health care fight, I would say that the political flame war was initiated by actual policy differences, and did not incorporate identity issues until later. Though contrary ideals of American identity certainly acted as a catalyst for the conflict, as did partisan maneuvering, the debate wouldn’t have reached this point if the two sides did not actually disagree on funding and organizational matters. It can be hard to consider the actual debate taking place amid the pandemonium created by the opposing camps. Such a ruckus is terribly irresponsible, but sadly does not lack precedent.
Perry Landesberg
Analysis Question: Split
Bottom Line: Politics is problematic in that it combines interests with identities. It is made worse that in the US we have only two parties, so overarching coalitions are made with interests and identities getting lost in the cracks or having to pick sides (it's really like one giant game of Red Rover).
President Obama's Health care plan is igniting lots of flames from both sides of the aisle and across the country. While many sub-groups are thrilled about supporting the plan to assist those with no coverage, there are just as many sub-groups who are thrilled about protecting the system we have (if the numbers Obama hands out, the system cannot just pick up 30 million new clients without expansion of the facilities).
Health care reform brings out multiple identities within each of us. While I would venture to say that most feel that the issue is one of social justice and equality there is still some essence of practicality and functionality. Let's say there is a wealthy El Salvadorian who is trying to decide how she feels about this issue. First off, she remembers what it was like to be a poor immigrant in the US barely getting by. But second, she now wants to protect what she has and not jeopardize an overcrowded system where everyone's quality falls. So this leaves me with the question, if there are two conflicting identities within one person, which identity wins when it comes down to it?
the o word
Last class we touched on an interesting topic that I wanted to expand on: The O word. For those who need a refresher, it was in the context of the question “What sustains identity over time?” and within that answer we discussed interpellation (according to M&N it is the communication process by which one is pulled into the social forces that place people into a specific identity).
I found an interesting article (although a few years old) it is a celebration of the state of Washington illegalizing the ‘O’ word from legislation and regulations. According to Senator Paul Shin, “Originally meant “from the direction of the rising sun,” however, the term “has absorbed the connotations of centuries of colonialism and oppression. Beginning in the 17th century, the British empire popularized the use of the word Oriental, which was a western way to refer to someone from east of London. Use of this pejorative word is no longer appropriate when referring to people. My greatest concern is for our youth -that they learn to be more sensitive to different cultures and ideas”.
This issue also falls into those little boxes that most applications for just about anything ask us to ‘voluntarily’ chose. Identity is based on one’s perception. But if one does not identify with a certain identity (an interesting dynamic brought up in Aoki article with the research on Mexicans within the US).
“Members of the Asian community have told me that they are offended to be referred to as ‘Oriental’ in our state statutes. The definition of the word notwithstanding, its various applications, such as ‘exotic,’ ‘strange,’ and so forth is demeaning. While many Asians under European colonial influence have not been educated to the application of the word, they now understand its meaning and connotations.”
I find it intriguing that there is a level of awareness involved. For example, in Nigeria I had a professor who urged us to refer to ‘ethnicities’ not tribes. The word ‘tribe’ has very similar connotations as the ‘O’ word. But the use of ‘tribe’ has been so ingrained in the language and culture that for the majority it is not seen as offensive (despite the connection to ‘occupation’ aka colonialism).
So this begs the question, if a group/identity perceives a term as offensive (perhaps it may be seen by others as over picky or it may be viewed as justified) does that make the word offensive?
The Article on Washington State Illegalizing the O Word:
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=143
I found an interesting article (although a few years old) it is a celebration of the state of Washington illegalizing the ‘O’ word from legislation and regulations. According to Senator Paul Shin, “Originally meant “from the direction of the rising sun,” however, the term “has absorbed the connotations of centuries of colonialism and oppression. Beginning in the 17th century, the British empire popularized the use of the word Oriental, which was a western way to refer to someone from east of London. Use of this pejorative word is no longer appropriate when referring to people. My greatest concern is for our youth -that they learn to be more sensitive to different cultures and ideas”.
This issue also falls into those little boxes that most applications for just about anything ask us to ‘voluntarily’ chose. Identity is based on one’s perception. But if one does not identify with a certain identity (an interesting dynamic brought up in Aoki article with the research on Mexicans within the US).
“Members of the Asian community have told me that they are offended to be referred to as ‘Oriental’ in our state statutes. The definition of the word notwithstanding, its various applications, such as ‘exotic,’ ‘strange,’ and so forth is demeaning. While many Asians under European colonial influence have not been educated to the application of the word, they now understand its meaning and connotations.”
I find it intriguing that there is a level of awareness involved. For example, in Nigeria I had a professor who urged us to refer to ‘ethnicities’ not tribes. The word ‘tribe’ has very similar connotations as the ‘O’ word. But the use of ‘tribe’ has been so ingrained in the language and culture that for the majority it is not seen as offensive (despite the connection to ‘occupation’ aka colonialism).
So this begs the question, if a group/identity perceives a term as offensive (perhaps it may be seen by others as over picky or it may be viewed as justified) does that make the word offensive?
The Article on Washington State Illegalizing the O Word:
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=143
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
