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