Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Columbia University linguist and cultural critic John McWhorter asserts that texting, rather than being a scourge, is a linguistic miracle. Texting is not so much written language, as it is speech. McWhorter argues that people benefit from texting, because fluency in spoken language, written language and writing-like-speaking language expands humans' linguistic repertoire.

Read this full article: "seems" is the operative word, as linguists are NOT in agreement that language definitively shapes how we see the world. If you want to learn another language and become fluent, you may have to change the way you behave in small but sometimes significant ways, specifically how you sort things into categories and what you notice. Researchers are starting to study how those changes happen, says Aneta Pavlenko, a professor of linguistics at Temple University. If people speaking different languages need to group or observe things differently, then bilinguals ought to switch focus depending on the language they use. That's exactly the case, according to Pavlenko. For example, she says English distinguishes between cups and glasses, but in Russian, the difference between chashka (cup) and stakan (glass) is based on shape, not material. One's native language could also affect memory, says Pavlenko. She points to novelist Vladimir Nabokov, who was fully trilingual in English, French and Russian. When Nabokov started translating his first memoir, written in English, into Russian, he recalled a lot of things that he did not remember when writing it in English. Pavlenko states that "the version of Nabokov's autobiography we know now is actually a third attempt, where he had to recall more things in Russian and then re-translate them from Russian back into English." Lena Boroditsky, an associate professor of cognitive science at the University of California, San Diego, has studied the differences in what research subjects remember when using English, which doesn't always note the intent of an action, and Spanish, which does. This can lead to differences in what people remember seeing, which is potentially important in eyewitness testimony, she says. However, not all linguists agree that language affects what we notice. John McWhorter,, a linguist at Columbia University, acknowledges such differences but says they don't really matter. The experim

Columbia University linguist John McWhorter opines on the impact AI translation might have on second language learning. We already know that Americans and UK folx are the most monolingual populations in the world; fewer than one in 100 American students currently become proficient in a language they learned in school. McWhorter argues that AI might offer utilitarian practicality for casual users, e.g. translating useful phrases on the fly while traveling: "With an iPhone handy and an appropriate app downloaded, foreign languages will no longer present most people with the barrier or challenge they once did." Yet McWhorter also says, "I don't think these tools will ever render learning foreign languages completely obsolete. Real conversation in the flowing nuances of casual speech cannot be rendered by a program, at least not in a way that would convey full humanity." He also suggests that genuinely acquiring a language will still beckon a few select people, e.g. those relocating to a new country, those who'd like to engage with literature or media in the original language, as well as those of us who find pleasure in mastering these new codes: that language learning will become "an artisanal pursuit" of sorts.

The meaning of words, and the way we used them, change all the time - and that's OK with linguist John McWhorter of Columbia University. He writes about how the English language has evolved in his new book, Words on the Move: Why English Won't - And Can't - Sit Still (Like Literally). This is a terrific book, by the way, with lots of entertaining examples of language shift, semantic drift, linguistic blending and contracting: perfect read for Words R Us. Highly recommended!

National Public Radio interviewed linguist John McWhorter on words and semantic change. The interview provides several contemporary examples showing how words and language are constantly changing. Mc Whorter asserts, "I think that we should learn not to listen to people using natural language as committing errors because there's no such thing as making a mistake in your language if a critical mass of other people speaking your language are doing the same thing."

The realities of speech are much more complicated than the words used to describe it. What's the difference between a language and a dialect? Linguist John McWhorter contemplates the distinction.

Linguist John McWhorter examines 3 fictional constructed languages, also known as conlangs, and explains the features that make them bona fide languages, including the presence of grammar/syntax and the fact that they evolve and change over time.

This article talks about how and why words in the English language are changing. For example, people now use "double check" when they really mean they will just "check". "Whelm" used to mean what "overwhelm" does now. Humans have done this over many years because it is in human nature to unconsciously give words extra strength. This article also analyzes some writers that are stuck behind the "train moving forward" that is the English language. The author of the article wonders if these writers will be able to keep up as years go on.

Columbia University linguist predicts 600 languages will remain in 2115 This will be due to the movement of people and parents not teaching their children 'native' languages used to particular parts of the world Dr John McWhorter says languages will also likely become more simple Translating tools will not be enough to preserve linguistic diversity Sci-fi visions of the future may focus on soaring skylines and flying cars, but the world in 100 years may not only look different, but sound different too.

Linguist John McWhorter links Donald Trump's use of casual speech as one of the reasons for his popular appeal. Even Trump's penchant for Twitter is understandable: the 140-character limit creates a way of writing that, like texting, diverges as little as possible from talking. America's relationship to language has become more informal by the decade since the 1960s, just as it has to dress, sexual matters, culinary habits, dance and much else. Given this historical context, we have to realize that Trump's talking style isn't as exotically barbaric as it looks on the page - the oddness is that it winds up on the page at all. And second, we have to understand that his fans' not minding how he talks is symptomatic of how all of us relate to formality nowadays. Language has just come along with it.