Salut

There are few words in any language that have such contrasting meanings such as "hello" and "goodbye." But they are nonetheless out there, like "salut" (pronounced sa-lyoo), which in French means both "hello" and "goodbye." As a result, the word requires special attention, listening to the context, tone of voice, and situation. In other words, the word demands multiple perspectives.

Looking back through memories of freshman year excitement, my first C on a test, I can say that I've been battered and worn out, but I have managed to come out with one important battle scar. That battle scar being the ability to acknowledge, think, and learn new perspectives that might be alien to me.

Entering high school as a freshman, I had been trained to take everything as it was given to me. My motto was believe everything your teachers say and what your parents say. Then I met Ishmael. Ishmael is a talking gorilla, but he was also the beginning to the journey I was taking. He had told me that our entire society was flawed. Never in my life did I think that there was another side to the "taker" life. That was the start to shedding my old life as thinking with only my perspective.

The word, "sophomore" means a wise fool. Let's just say I had a bit more fool in me than wise at this point. While school continued to open more perspectives, I was the given the opportunity to live in a completely new perspective for three weeks in Kiel, Germany. There, I learned the value of thinking in new perspectives, as it sped up the immersion process in their culture. At the same time, listening to such contrasting opinions on health care and even the environment reinforced the prominence of multiple perspectives.

Junior year was my caveman days, rarely finding the time to eat, shower, socialize. However, it was the year I first tried Original Oratory on the speech team. While I had initially joined because I loved to talk, as I began attending tournaments and receiving criticism for my speech, I learned that even an argument as harmless as the need for foreign language education drew a flood of comments and ideas. I had to learn how to acknowledge those different points of view and sincerely address them in my speech.

My senior year has been the time for these past smaller realizations to culminate into who I am today. Senior year has been very much about rearming myself with the gear to better develop multiple perspectives, by learning about the mythical lens, Marxist lens, and ecocritical lens. It's a realization that has allowed me to further appreciate words like "salut."

As I look to college, I'm optimistic that it will build off this journey and battle scar, but I also hope that it will be another journey that moves me beyond understanding multiple perspectives. So until then, Salut!

Parlez 당신 Deutsch?

When asked by our teachers which issue in our society needs to be addressed, many immediately think of poverty, diseases, hunger, and climate change. However, one issue that will affect all of us and our ability to communicate in an ever globalized world is the lack of foreign language education, especially in the elementary schools.


Currently less than 26% of American adults speak another language, in comparison to over 54% of Europeans who are able to hold a conversation in another language. What does this increasing gap of ability to communicate exactly mean?

- According David Gray, former Secretary of Labor, it significantly reduces American competitiveness in global markets, as they cannot fully communicate without an aid. He explains, "To make a sale, you have a great disadvantage if your competitor speaks the language of the customer and you don’t.”

- According to ACTFL (American Council of Teachers for foreign Languages), our national security is further weakened, as there is an ever diminishing number of translators working within the FBI as well as diminishes diplomatic efforts with a lack of cultural awareness.

Despite these real implications, only 25% of elementary schools in the entire US offer foreign language programs. In addition, the only bill that specifically supported foreign languages was eliminated in 2012.

So why is there a continuous lack of attention to foreign languages?

1. Americans don't see the need for foreign languages.

To put it in perspective, a Gallup poll survey was conducted in 2001, asking the question, "How important is it that Americans learn to speak a second language other than English?" 

	Essential	Important	Not too important	Not at all important	No opinion
2001 Mar 26-28	19%	50	18	12	1

 A mere 19% of those surveyed thought that learning another language was significant. In comparison, a similar study was conducted by the European Commission in 2001, and the results revealed nearly 74% of Europeans believed that learning another language was essential. However, what was important to notice was that only 34% attributed their belief to the fact that the other languages are widely spoken, whereas 73% attributed it to increasing job prospects.

2. This leads me to the second reason as to why Americans don't find the need to learn foreign languages, our geography and our history.

Head of the American Council on Teaching of Foreign Languages, Marty Abbott puts it best, "We have never had a compelling reason to interact with the rest of the world. We have been isolated geographically, and haven’t had that urgency [to learn other languages] that Europeans have had.” 

Because English has become a global language, and we ourselves have never had to compete with our surroundings (as our surroundings are bodies of water), we use English as a badge of national expression and identity. As a result, according to Shuhan Wang of the National Foreign Language Center, "it becomes a two-edged sword. People understand us, but we don’t comprehend them. We are losing so much and are not aware of it.”


The world has changed and we can no longer be satisfied with bypassing cultural lessons and foreign language classes simply because we know English. The world is quickly adapting, when will we?

For a little Culture "Shock" check out some of these popular German, French, and Korean songs!

Terrorism: The Word

My name is Austin Bream, and I write a blog called How Underdogs Win. Today, I’m going to guest write here, and give language a shot. I guess today I’m the underdog.

As I sat down to write this blog post, I didn’t expect the events I was writing on to become the base of one of the most terrifying weeks in America. Yes, of course I’m referring to the Boston Marathon attacks, and subsequent manhunt. But what captivated me in the attacks, besides the deeply unsettling casualties and historical shutting-down of Boston (fascinating recap), was the language surrounding what had actually happened.

For the most part, news sources informed the public of these attacks, referring to them as “acts of terror”. One person did noticeably avoid the phrase. President Obama. As I listened to his first speech, made Monday night, I noted the absence of what has unfortunately become too common a phrase. Why was Obama not using the phrase “act of terror”, especially when so many others were, including a White House Official who spoke immediately after Obama with a clarification on the absence of the phrase in his speech?

The best point to begin with is the word’s history and connotation. First popularized during the French Revolution, the word had positive implications, a government initiated system to restore order amidst chaos through the use of terror (think guillotine). History also shows us that terrorism was organized, heavily planned in advance, a characteristic taken into account by the CIA definition, which describes terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents”. It was only through the anti-colonialist sentiments after World War II, which fueled attacks against European powers, that the word took on its modern connotations of attacks against a government and not by it.

This information aids in understanding Obama’s decision. At the time he gave his first speech, he did not know if political motive existed. And with the memory of his phrasing of the attacks in Libya and the controversy there created, he wished to be deliberate in his words. But the next day he spoke again, and used the word terror in describing the attacks. However, he also clarified that the motive and actors were as of yet unknown.

The language surrounding the attack continues to be important through the crazy events that have followed the attacks. The actors in this attack have been called “devout to Islam” and hail from Chechnya. Yet whether they wished only to cause damage or had a more political motive is still unknown. And thus, dubbing the attacks terrorism is not precise. And it is risky. For in so doing, their home region and religion instantly becomes associated with acts of terror, hate crimes occur, and more fear arises. But if their motives were not political, and even if they were not related to religion or homeland, then no terrorism occurred. Thus the phrase acts as a trigger for more fear, more violence.

To conclude, should we ever use the word terror? It seems to me that as soon as the label is given to any act, the action gains further success. Let me explain. A terrorist wishes to incite terror, to use the attack to fuel instability and collapse. When, after an attack, we enter into a period of fear and become unstable, we aid the attacker. And using the word terror incites this fear. Furthermore, the word is tricky as to its correct usage, high risk with little reward. Thus, I don’t see merit to using the word terror, but I do recognize the importance of language in terrorism. And how terrible it can be.

To all the victims of the attacks in Boston: You are in our hearts and prayers, our thoughts and wishes. This is a reminder of how great America can be. Not in our fall, but in our ability to rise and come together again. As we stay together through tragedy, we ensure those wishing to destabilize us through violence do not succeed, and what could be terrorism isn’t.

The Birds and the Bees 2.0

Contrary to popular belief, speech and words weren't magical gifts thrust upon our ancestors by the gods. Instead, according to MIT's Shigeru Miyagawa, it was due to these guys:

    

While the explanation for the origin of human language varies from the bow-wow theory to the pooh pooh theory (they're real!), Darwin couldn't have better put it when he said that the origins of words may have come from singing, which gives rise to words with emotions as well.

Simply put, human language comes from the combination of elaborate songs of birds and the more utilitarian, information bearing types of expression found in other animals. This, therefore, leads to the idea that human language in essence has two different layers. The first layer is called the "expression" layer, or the fluidity of order of the words. The second layer is called the "lexical" layer, or the core content of the sentence. For example, take the sentence "Bob saw a bird". The expression layer is revealed as we could manipulate the order of the words and even add other words to ask, "When did Bob see the bird?". However, the lexical layer is that the main content of the sentence remains the same, "Bob," "see," and "bird."

So, how do the birds and bees play a role?

According to Miyagawa and Chomskey, birdsong contains the expression layer of human language. Rather than containing actual content in the songs, birds simply use melodies that simply have one meaning, such as mating or territory. Nightingales are known to be able to recite from 100 to 200 different melodies. (Listen to some of those soothing bird calls here.) Whereas the communicative waggle of bees, resembles the lexical layer. For example, bees communicate through precise waggles in order to share with other bees the location of food, while other primates use a range of short sounds to indicate threats.

Humans have simply put the two together to create language that contains both expression and content. Darwin even goes to suggest that humans first developed the ability to sing, and then learned to apply the lexical layer to the singing. Thus, developing the ability to communicate in essential information in melodious, flexible structures.

Parents all around the world will have a hard time explaining this "bird and bees" story.

Disney is Eating the Next Generation

With women like Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandburg encouraging women to embrace their inner Hermione Grangers, it seems our society has graduated from the days when women couldn't vote and receive an education. 

Although we have come a long way, seeing the familiar faces of Disney, the cornerstone of most of our childhoods, we might not be as transformed as we might think.  

However, what is it about these pretty in pink creatures that make them so dreadful? According to Peggy Orgenstein's Cinderella Ate My Daughter, language plays a big role in infiltrating the minds of wishful seven year olds. Language in songs especially unconsciously embed in our minds that women are weaker, less intelligent, and less capable than men. 

Back when I was 3 foot and 5 inches, my favorite princess had to be Mulan. She is a brave warrior who sacrifices her comfortable life in order to save her father. One of my favorite songs that I loved to sing, "I'll Make a Man out of You", and still sing sometimes today, inadvertently diminishes our quest to equalize our society.  

So, I recently went back and listened to the song again.
Here's one quote from "I'll Make a Man Out of You" that particularly spoke to me: 

• "Did they send me daughters, when I asked for sons?"

Through a feminist lens, the first quote revives the patriarchal society that we've been trying to shed for decades. The outright comparison between men and women immediately paints the picture that women are incapable of fighting and far weaker than men. As author Orgenstein puts it, "it prompts girls to simply wait for princes they've never met to rescue them from misery". This mentality at a young age allows girls to lower their expectations by convincing themselves that in the end, they'll marry a rich man and live happily ever after.

We may say that these words don't really affect us. We're intelligent. We can filter out the messages. However, according to the New York Times, "Studies have long shown that media messages have a pronounced impact on childhood risk behaviors." Words matter, especially words with catchy tunes. 

We have made such incredible progress in creating an equal society, but we're stuck at the crossroads. Do we keep a childhood cornerstone such as Disney? Disney has managed to capture our every dreams in hour long movies, but if we keep feeding Disney to our future generations, Disney will keep feeding them words and ideas that advances notions that it's acceptable to keep women in the kitchen, that women are weaker than men, that women can be treated differently.

You decide. Do we keep feeding Disney to future generations?

"It's Like Ridic"

Impersonate a girl talking. In response to this order, most people switch to an upper range, and all of a sudden begin to add "like" after every word and uptalk. For decades, what we have named as Valley Girl talk and more recently Kardashian talk, have become markers of immaturity and stupidity. Yet, Dr. Penny Eckert, professor of linguistics at Stanford and linguists argue that women and teenage girls should be given credit for pioneering vocal trends and slang that serve more than to be just "cute". 


So, what do I mean by vocal trends? According to the Journal of Voice, after studying samples of recorded speech of women aged 18 to 25, the professors have found evidence of the emerging vocal trend of "vocal fry" aka a guttural fluttering of vocal chords. Need an example? Imagine the raspy, croaking sound at the end of sentences of Mae West saying, "Why don’t you come up sometime and see me." Or even more recently, it can be heard on SNL's Maya Rudolph's impersonation of Maya Angelou.

While uptalk and vocal fry can be found from Reese Witherspoon's portrayal of Elle Woods in "Legally Blonde" to the senior members of a Texas sorority, both vocal fry and uptalk are timeless vocal trends. In fact, vocal fry can be traced back to 1964 among British men who used this tool to establish their superior standing. Showing that it's not only women who have found vocal fry effective.


The question remains: why are we so fond of these particular vocal trends? More importantly, are women on to something? According to Fought, yes, "The truth is this: Young women take linguistic features and use them as power tools for building relationships.” In addition, these tools are particular effective when women are trying to assert their authority or position. Giving the saying, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it" a whole new meaning.

The next time you hear someone uptalk or use vocal fry, rather than criticizing his or her "mainstreamness" or convergence to pop culture, try it for yourself. 

Shut Up and Listen

Up until now, getting someone to shut their trap has been a difficult feat. We’ve relied on shushing, witty insults, and even good old duct tape, but these methods have been useless, difficult, and assault, respectively.
But all that toil has come to an end, with the new speech jamming gun affectionately known as the speech jammer. According to Popular Science on March 1st, 2012, Japanese researchers Kurihara and Tsukada have taken the simple design of a radar gun, combined it with a microphone and a speaker, to create Delayed Auditory Feedback.
This invention means several benefits:
 
1. Ability to treat stuttering
 
According to the Stuttering Foundation, “DAF used in speech jamming guns induces fluency in many individuals who stutter.” The East Carolina University conducted an experiment with 9 adults with stutters who would conduct 15 business phone calls, and without the participants knowing, DAF was applied on the telephones. The result? There was nearly a 60% reduction in stuttering frequency among the participants.
 
2. Moderate discourse
 
In an article of Japan Today, Kurihara and Tsukada reveal that their initial purpose for the device was to use it in public settings on “people who just can’t follow normal rules of conversation.” For example, in the recent presidential debates, moderator Jim Lehrer desperately needed this speech jammer when President Obama and Governor Romney “accidentally” went over their allotted speaking times.

While I'm sure we can all think of that one person to use the speech jammer on, the device doesn't come without heavier implications.
 
1. Ending up in the wrong hands
 
For example, in a public setting, such as a political rally, the device in the hands of an audience member could be used to silence the speakers. Whereas in the hands of an oppressive regime, political dissenters and demonstrators could be completely shut down vocally.
 
2. The sound and silence paradox

If people are speaking or acting with the threat of silence upon them, this can potentially change their behavior which will stifle creative thinking and problem solving. This raises an important question: At what point does a disciplinary measure become a deterrent? At what point does a simple shush towards one person turn into the power to silence an entire generation?

What do you think? If this device hit the stores, would you be the first in line? Sound off in the comment section below!

Meanwhile, curious to see how this device works? Check it out for yourself:

Raising Dead Languages

Sanskrit

From Latin to Ancient Greek to Sanskrit, it has been more than thousands of years since words have been spoken in these respective languages. For any culture, its language is one of the primary ways it stays alive. Without the continuation of the language, the culture loses its significance as well as its influence.   

For a long time, the only way to stave off a language from going extinct was to find the few native speakers and physically document the language or to labor over documents and decode the language. One prominent example of trying to save a dying language is the journey of Geoffrey Khan, a linguist at the University of Cambridge. His goal was to document Aramaic, a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Arabic, and was the common tongue used throughout the Middle East. Aramaic even dates back to the time of Jesus Christ, as he cried in Aramaic on the cross, "Elahi, Elahi, lema shabaqtani?” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). Despite its presence throughout a majority of history, Aramaic is down to its last one or two generation of speakers. As a result, Khan has taken the extended effort to interview and record the native speakers. While the direct interaction with those who speak the language is a personal way of keeping a language alive, it just isn't humanely possible to speak to everyone, nor are there always people who speak all the languages. 

However, with our advanced computers, raising dead languages might not be out of reach. In fact, according to Canadian scientist Alexandre Bouchard-Cote and his research team at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver theorize that the world's dead languages could be reconstructed using computer programs to build extinct languages, word-by-word. In other words, computers could use current languages to recreate extinct ones. 

Although the future of dying languages seems a little brighter, this raises an important question. Is it right to allow technology to keep languages alive, when languages fundamentally begin through speech?

Under the Gigil Spell

           
If you're squealing in your seat, wanting to simply snatch these cute animals and squeeze them, you're not alone.

From statements like "I just wanna eat you up!" or "I can't handle it," the words we express when seeing something cute reveals a dark side to our infatuation with cute. In fact, this "cute aggression" as one researcher puts it, is quite normal and instead exposes an innate response.  And in the Philippines, they even have a word for it:

gigil n. the urge to pinch or squeeze something that is unbearably cute. 

Yet, this aggression, as clarified by Society for Personality and Social Psychology, doesn't imply any harm.

The bigger question becomes, "Why is it that the language and motions that we use to react to cute pictures, animals, etc. are so violent?"

Paradoxically, our brains function in a way that rather than approaching something cute and cuddly with gentleness and care, our brain turns it into aggression. Intrigued by the correlation of cuteness and verbal & physical aggression, researchers split up the experiment into two. The first experiment consisted of 109 participants rating pictures by how much they felt the pictures made them lose control. This was measured specifically through the verbal reactions to each picture. Whereas the second experiment focused on the connection of verbal aggression and physical aggression, by gathering 90 male and female volunteers who were given bubble wrap. The researchers found that the participants watching the cute slideshow of animals popped more than 120 bubbles, as compared to 80 for those watching a funny slideshow, and 100 for those watching a neutral slideshow.

While the correlation between the "aggression" in our words and cuteness has been established, according to Popular Science, the causation is still in the works. However, Dyer offers two possibilities: the overwhelming positive emotions are expressed negatively in an attempt to control ourselves. It's a bit like crying at truly happy events. Or, it's because the overwhelming positive emotion stirs in us a desire to take care of it, but because it's a picture, frustration turns into aggression.

Whatever the reason, let's just say, we have a little bit of Steinbeck's Lennie Small in all of us. However, not to worry, as Dyer of Yale puts it, "We don't have a bunch of budding sociopaths in our studies that you have to worry about".