In this article, a teacher describes his experience talking with a mother about her son's supposed "gang" life. The article is entitled "The limits of language" as it reveals how our language sometimes does not provide for more nuanced words that could adequately describe certain concepts. This comes about from his conversation when the mother describes to acknowledge that her son is in a gang. Regardless of whether he is in one or not, the mere label of someone being a gang member evokes certain emotions such as fear. In fact, the author mentions this and notices how white youth are usually referred to as "delinquents" whereas youth of color more often are labeled by their association with gangs.

The label as a gang brings problems because it does not take into account the culture of those that belong to them or the circumstances that brought them their. When people hear the word gang they are quick to disassociate themselves from those that are labeled so. The label stops those on the outside from looking into why people may be forced to join gangs. Furthermore, not all teen activity may be considered as ganglike although people may label it so. Thus, labels become dangerous because they do not properly convey a person's motivations or circumstances.

This article about the use of grammar brought up an interesting question about how we approach language both in daily and professional life. The article opens with the novel The Elegance of the Hedgehog's 12-year old protagonist, Paloma, reacting to her teacher's musings about grammar. When posed with the question, "What is the point of grammar?" her teacher responds "to make us speak and write well." Paloma dissents from her answer, thinking instead that grammar serves as the "access to the structure and beauty of language."

This kind of discussion brings up the question of how we use language and whether we should always respect it in the sense that it is a way of conveying beauty. In that regard, language remains one of the most accessible mediums of expressing beauty--it does not require any materials or any formal training. It could be said that education is required to make full use of language, but I believe that it is not needed. However, is it needed to incorporate the beauty of language in everyday interactions such as email? Paloma "get[s] carried away just knowing that there are words of all different natures." Is this how everyone should consider language? Or the purpose of language more for pragmatism's sake than beauty's?

Reading the article "U.S. Students Hurting in Foreign Languages" made me realize how small of an emphasis United States schools collectively place on learning foreign languages. Because I had the privilege to attend schools with strong language programs I was not aware of the lack of attention that foreign languages had in the general sphere of United States schools. The article talks of how schools consider language programs a first resort when it comes to dealing with budget cuts. Because learning a foreign language is seen as optional, schools consider it of less importance or carrying less academic weight than other subjects. However, I believe that is not the case because as both the world and our own country are constantly affected by foreign languages. It is rapidly becoming necessary to learn another language in order to adequately communicate with people in both casual and work settings.

I liked how the article described many people's attitude towards learning foreign languages in the United States. It states that because we are isolated geographically we historically have not had to deal with other foreign languages unlike those living in Europe. However, due to constantly increasing globalization and immigration this notion is not quite so appropriate. We cannot simply say that we do not have to deal with other languages because it is also necessary to accommodate the needs of a world that does not solely speak English. It seems self-centered to think that the rest of the world must conform to speaking English and not make any effort to participate with others within their comfort zones.

Furthermore, it was interesting how the article described the U.S. attitude towards learning foreign languages as a "double-edged sword." There is a lot to lose if we choose to exclusively communicate in English. We lose access to valuable resources that would not otherwise be available to us if we did not speak other languages. Thus, the article successfully asserts that "language is a force, not a choice." And if this is true, it is imperative that schools reconsider the amount of importance they attribute to foreign languages.

The expression of pain and its difficulties were discussed in this article. The article described the personal account of David Biro who underwent a bone marrow transplantation and, after struggling to describe his experience, decided to write a book with the theme of articulating the feeling of pain. He mentions how pain is both "isolating" yet "all-encompassing" and attempts to explain why "pain is impossible to share." He settles on the use of metaphor to effectively convey the feeling of pain stating, "metaphor gives us words and objects where there were none." This quote opened up new questions for me beyond that of the topic of pain. For example, how was it first determined what word to ascribe to a sensation when such words were lacking?

It is strange to think about how words are originally assigned to objects or feelings. Especially in the case of things that are more abstract such as pain, how can people know that they are talking about the same thing? It seems that each interpretation of a word or a sensation truly comes down to the individual. Language, thus, is such an arbitrary experience because there is a time when one person can completely understand what another person is communicating. It seems that it depends largely on the experience which I suppose is the way that people were gradually able to decide on which words to assign to a sensation that cannot be physically shared.

The article also reminded me of my own experience in trying to describe pain. For example, we are often asked by doctors whether the pain we feel is throbbing, pounding, shooting, etc. However, it always seemed that pain could not necessarily be described in such manners. It was always hard for to discern which adjective to describe the pain I was feeling. This must have implications in the diagnosis of individual cases. Because each individual has his or her own idea about what a certain pain feels like, it is important not to solely rely on these adjectives when trying to ascertain what is wrong with a person. I never thought about how clear or explicit people must be when administering diagnoses until taking this class, but now I realize that it is e especially important to pay attention to how doctors and patients communicate with each other in order to determine what is best for them.

An aspect of language that I feel we have not discussed enough in class is its role in music. An article that I read that reminded me of this discussed the incorporation of Vietnamese, a tonal language, into a new opera production called Amelia. Because the opera includes a flashback scene in Vietnam, the composer wanted to respect the scene by having it authentically portrayed. It was interesting to read about how those involved with the opera dealt with this situation. At first, the composer felt limited because he could not use certain intervals for specific words, but as he grew more comfortable actually began to appreciate its musical merits as a tonal language. The most striking aspect of this opera was its fusion of Western music tradition with Eastern culture. I am curious to see how it is executed and whether the production can claim authenticity as both an opera and a showcase of the Vietnamese language.

Beyond this specific case lie other questions with regards to language's role in music. For example, can languages dictate the type of rhythms that are prevalent in a culture's music? Furthermore, how important is language in conveying the meaning of music? Music is not exclusively conveyed in a spoken manner, but does the use of language facilitate a person's access to the meaning of particular music? These are questions that I have because both music and language seem to form in response to certain needs of the people. For instance, it seems that spirituality and religion necessitated the creation of music and also the development of language. Thus, both music and language both seem to be pervasive elements of society so it would be interesting to observe how the two work together and form new notions that affect our lives.

The article "The language divide at the heart of a split that is tearing Belgium apart," as is implied by the title, discusses how language threatens to tear the nation of Belgium into two. It describes Belgium's situations as that of "linguistic apartheid," in which the Dutch-speaking Flemings from the North are contesting with the French-speaking Walloons from the South. It describes how Flemish separatism is becoming more prevalent in mainstream society and thus something that must be seriously considered by Belgium's citizens. In a science playground in a town 20 minutes north of Brussels, there is no mention of Belgium. The playground teaches children, "making education fun," but does so exclusively in Dutch. Moreover, it tells only of statistics of Flanders. This manifestation of Flemish separatism further demonstrates how it is ingraining itself into its citizens minds.

Language, through this article, is again seen to be a very powerful political force--one that can unite or, in this case, divide a group of people. It can determine how nations and their borders are situated geographically. However, is it just language that exclusively serves to divide the nation? The article also mentions ways in which the two regions are different including voting tendencies and the relative prosperity of their people. So, in this case, is language solely used to distinguish between the two already different regions or does it have a role in causing the differences between the two? It would be interesting to look into the elements of both the French and Dutch languages and see if either have implications that can cause such differences.

The article "Seattle officer in video apologizes for language" discusses an officer's reaction to the posting of a video in which he was caught calling a suspect racial slurs. He was quoted as saying, "I'm going to beat the [expletive] Mexican piss out of you." However, afterwards, during a news conference, he told the media, "I know my words cut deep and were very hurtful. ... I am truly, truly sorry." This situation demonstrates how language can reveal and even exacerbate sentiments caused by an individual's notion of race. It reminds me of the recent discussion we had in class about categorization. We often perpetuate stereotypes because of the way we categorize people upon first notice. These stereotypes can be especially harmful when they make their ways into societal institutions, such as law enforcement. Another example of this is the recent immigration law passed in Arizona which effectively permits the use of racial profiling to arrest an individual.

Language seems to play a considerable role even in these types of situations. For example, would the police officer be as scrutinized if he had not chosen to use the word "Mexican?" It seems that this can have two effects: either shocking or surprising those that view the video or perhaps affirming beliefs that are ingrained into some viewers' minds. Even the way in which the article is presented can be interpreted in different ways. It describes him as "tearful," but also when quoting him relies on the word "said" in order to convey objectivity. Thus, this article reveals both in the actual event and in the presentation of the event how the relationship between race and language is still perpetuated by our society. Recent actions taken in protest the Arizona law include the production of shirts that state "I am an illegal immigrant" and a Facebook event entitled, "Do I look Illegal?" Language in this situation is used to statements that do indeed affect the enforcement of policy. If a police officer has any reason to suspect an individual is an "illegal immigrant" then he or she has to stop them--a fact that underscores the creation of the aforementioned shirts. Language then serves to provide a tool for those who wish to oppress those who are part of categories perceived as inferior. At the same time, it can be used to mediate situations or demonstrate strength or solidarity within a community.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (2) Now
the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the
deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (3) And God
said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (4) God saw that the
light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. (5) God
called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there
was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

Translation to Spanish:

Al principio Dios creó los cielos y la tierra. Ahora la tierra no tenia forma y vacía, la oscuridad fue sobre la superficie de las profundidades, y el espíritu de Dios estaba volando sobre el agua. Y Dios dijo, “Sea la luz,” y hubo luz. Dios vio que la luz fue buena y separó la luz de la oscuridad. Dios se llamó la luz el “día,” and la oscuridad se llamó la “noche.” Y hubo la tarde, y hubo la mañana-el primer día.

It was difficult for me to translate the passage because Spanish is not a language that I grew up with or that I know comprehensively. Thus, there were moments in which I did not know if I was representing the passage accurately in my translation. It felt especially artificial for me when I had to consult a Spanish-English dictionary. Words like "hover" and "formless" were especially difficult for me to translate. I did not know how I should convey them because I did not know words in Spanish that could serve as direct translations. Then again I would not know if that would be the right approach to translating this passage. With regards to grammatical gender, I thought it was interesting how each word was classified. For instance, in my mind, I would think that heaven would be characterized as feminine and the earth would be characterized as masculine. I don't know if this is due to my own personal conceptions of the two or due to the society in which I live and how it chooses to associate certain traits with certain genders. It makes me wonder if languages that do not necessarily have grammatical gender rely on other elements when deciding how to categorize something other than those that are innately in the language one speaks.

Our recent discussion about the seemingly other world that seems to be characteristic of the experience of people who are deaf brought me to the attention of this article. The article discussed how deaf voters could effectively be disenfranchised due to the lack of services provided to them with regards to current political matters. This is something I never really considered before when it came to language, but it is an important issue. I wonder why it hasn't really been emphasized as much as speakers of other languages than English. Could it be due to the confusion over whether sign language is actually a foreign language or not? Or perhaps people don't realize how those who are deaf are affected because they are not aware of what is going on in the "deaf world." Nonetheless, it is still an important consideration for all politicians to have.

It makes me wonder how the deaf population has traditionally participated in politics. I feel that it is a considerable population that would need specific services and resources and thus if its voice is not heard then there can be consequences. The fact that deaf people may consider themselves "invisible" to politicians is disheartening. Deaf voters not only have perspectives that come from just being citizens of their countries, but also may have perspectives that come from having such a different experience. I have always considered how people may be disenfranchised due to being of a certain minority or socioeconomic status, but never how they can be disenfranchised due to being deaf. It is an interesting topic to think about and there is a much needed dialogue with regards to addressing this issue amongst both politicians and those who participate in politics.

This editorial that I read about Taiwan's efforts to implement English into the instruction of schoolchildren seemed interesting because all the discussions we've had in the past seem to perceive English as a threat. On the one hand we have countries such as France and China which are taking measures such as eliminating the use of English acronyms to defend their country against English and on the other hand we have Taiwan who, according to the author of this editorial, must increase the presence of English in Taiwanese society.

When comparing both cases, the actions taken on the part of each country seem to be a response to the threat of a larger influence. For China and France, the perceived threat is the United States of America; meanwhile, for Taiwan, the perceived threat is the People's Republic of China. In fact, the author urges Taiwan to open itself up to globalization, seeming to take a position contrary to the other countries we have discussed. Globalization is seen as strengthening "social equity" and the country's "trade and investment." However, would this sacrifice the culture of the country?

The editorial describes schoolchildren as being "doomed to stay 'locked' on Taiwan or other Chinese." Obviously, having this sort of attitude towards a language would serve to devalue it. Thus, it seems that the author of this editorial may be taking the wrong approach to adapting English. There is no recognition of the value in speaking a language that a country can call their own. It may be beneficial to implement English, but I don't believe that it should be at the expense of the native language and culture of Taiwan.

An article I read about Chinese slang phrases prompted me to think about the nuances that come in any form of language, regardless of how "coarse" the language may be perceived. These nuances are what bring the "human" element to language. As opposed to using every word in a denotative manner, slang attributes meanings that are more personal and make language more accessible to a group of people. I remember how in class we discussed how the groups as small as a neighborhood were considered to be developing their own form of a language because they can create terms or phrases that are localized and thus create their own vernacular.

It's also funny because I personally would not see the English translations of the example slang phrases provided by the article as particularly provincial or vulgar. In fact, they seemed almost poetic to me with many of them employing metaphors or analogies that are symbolic of what they mean. At the same time, I know that I cannot count on the English translation to know the exact meaning that is conveyed. The context of culture provides more impetus for determining whether certain phrases are slang or not.

However, I definitely think slang is an important aspect to examine in a language. I believe more so than formal language it can reveal the values of a culture. These are the phrases that people are using in private conversations where they are not trying to censor themselves. Thus, slang phrases contain a lot of raw meaning that cannot be taken for granted. I wonder if it would be appropriate for language classes to incorporate slang into their curriculum. I think it could allow students to feel closer to a language and see more clearly the relationship between a language and its speakers.

I read an article in the website of the National Defense Magazine about the prospects of having instantaneous two-way translators for U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens to converse with each other. The technology would try to reconcile "rule-based machine translation" with "statistical translation" in an attempt to facilitate a more fluid and natural dialogue between the two speaking.

I find it interesting that the development of this type of technology is being sped along by needs that arose from the current war. I wonder what the true intentions they have in producing this type of technology. Language, especially within the context of war, can have an important impact on different individuals. Many individuals are taught to believe the mentality that war is an "us vs. them" situation. They consider anything affiliated with the other side to be their enemy. Thus, it is important to dispel this misconception and depending on how language and communication are used the misconception can either be affirmed or debunked.

Intentions, then, play a large role in the execution of language and dialogue especially when attributing part of that dialogue to a machine. The machine used to translate can have unintended consequences for those using it and this may largely depend on how the developer chooses to design the machine. Since it is being developed seemingly for the purposes of war, it is hard to know how biased or unbiased the translations may be. These biases may serve goals that are solely in the interest of the military and thus have nuanced translations that can define the interaction between a soldier and and Iraqi citizen. I feel that intentions influence the way things may be phrased whether developers are conscious of it or not.

However, my hope is that the translator will allow soldiers to develop meaningful relationships with the citizens that may not necessarily be motivated by their obligations to the war. I feel that language can be a powerful tool in showing that what we may perceive to be an enemy is a person that has the same sentiments, ideals, or values as we do. It is important that someone who understands and knows the situation of the Iraqi citizen aids in the development of the translator. With help such as this, both conflict due to cultural differences can be avoided and intentions can remain balanced and hopefully serve to create relationships with each other based not on notions of war, but rather on common values of humanity.

The Youth League leader of the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa, Julius Malema, has been ordered to "refrain from using inflammatory language" about Eugene Terre'blanche, a white supremacist leader who was killed recently. This action arose as a response to Malema's singing of "Ayesama Amagwala," a song prevalent during the apartheid-era. In this song contain the lyrics "shoot the Boer" whose singing served to justify the reprimand of Malema. What I found interesting, however, was the fact that the ANC did see justification in singing the song. The article described the ANC as wanting Malema to "soften his tone." According to this article, the basis for the song's defense lay in the song's role as a part of South Africa's cultural heritage--it recounts the country's legacy of resistance against oppression. The ANC's support of the song and its lyrics became apparent when it challenged a ruling from the high court in Pretoria that barred the singing of the song.

The interplay between language, especially specific words, and culture seems to manifest itself in this particular case. Although the song's lyrics are seen as potentially "instigating violence, discord, and/or hatred between black and white people," there is still motivation to preserve and commemorate its legacy. On the one hand, the song's lyrics explicitly advocates for violence against a certain group, but on the other hand, the lyrics are not meant to be taken out of context. The lyrics show how simple words or phrases can hold considerable power. Especially when considered within the context of a country's culture and history, words take on meanings beyond that of their literal definitions.

However, to what extent can culture justify or compensate for phrases likely to incite hatred or violence? I feel that if the ANC wants to advocate for the song it must be careful in how the song is portrayed. Although many may be familiar with the country's struggle with apartheid, it seems there are also many who do not think beyond what they hear. After hearing the words "shoot the Boer," many may take this to heart and embody this sentiment in their thoughts and actions. Thus, if the ANC wants to maintain the song as a symbol for South Africa's history, it must be explicit in its intentions. Words have different effects on different people and, in order to ensure that the intended effect is achieved, the people must know the motivations for preserving the words.

Upon reading "Want to be cool? First, you have to learn the language," an opinion piece by Marten Youssef, I was able to obtain a greater sense of the barriers present due to language in our school system. Before, when I was younger I did not think anything of my friends who were required to take ESL classes although they seemed to speak perfectly good English. However, especially after reading this piece I have realized how the perception of a speaker as foreign regardless of whether they speak English or not can have lasting consequences on his or her life. This was the case for Youssef who, as evident in the title, felt an imposed sense of isolation due to the fact that he was required to take ESL.

Although ESL was seen as the gateway to assimilation for the students taking it, it seemed ironic that it only served to exacerbate their designation as foreign. The social stigma created from having this compulsory class seemed only to magnify the differences between new immigrants and other students. Rather than being admired for their efforts to assimilate, the ESL students were ridiculed. The very fact that he thought that he needed to know English in order to be "cool" reveals the role of language in creating a social hierarchy, even at a magnitude as small as schoolyard popularity contests.

I also was intrigued by the initial journal entries kept by Youssef. When confined to such a small range of words do certain words carry more meaning than those of a language in which a speaker is fluent? Or are they used simply the way they are defined in a dictionary because that is all a new speaker may know? I'm curious as to what the implications may be in the use of words when a speaker is limited to so few.

Nevertheless, the piece really highlighted the dilemma that many students face in today's schools. Students who may not even be immigrants are required to take classes that creates an obvious distinction between those perceived to be fluent in English and those perceived to lack sufficient ability to speak it. I feel it is an important issue because these types of decisions can potentially have long lasting consequences on students' lives. With his opinion piece, Youssef demonstrates another manner in which language and the institution of language can affect people, even to the point, as seen in the article, of marginalization of a group of people