Due by 5pm on Sunday, February 9: Discussion Post #3 on the Ning
What kinds of structures do you observe in your language of study? Refer to the diagram on page 9 in Aitchison’s linguistics. How do you combine different disciplinary perspectives to formulate a more holistic understanding of your target language? Do you give preference to one disciplinary approach over the others? How will your knowledge of language structures and disciplinary methodologies influence the trajectory of your learning plan?
Replies
American sign language (ASL) is a unique language that follows the patters of the English language. Those who are deaf and know ASL are easily able to communicate with English speakers through writing as the grammar and spelling of words between the two languages have many overlapping featurettes. However, ASL is not English. Even after studying the language for only three weeks, I can tell, despite the similarities between these languages, that ASL is its own language. This is also strongly expressed by my language partner. In some ways that the two are different, many of the small transition words that one would use in English, such as “the”, “and”, “is” are not signed in ASL. By removing such small words from the sentence, individuals are able to sign with greater speed, but the purpose of such words is called into question from their removal. Why, in English, do we have words such as “the”? What benefit do they have towards language and are these types of words really necessary? Those in the ASL community seem to function and communicate just as well as the English community, but yet, they lack these transition words.
As I am learning sentence structure and expanding my ASL vocabulary, I find that sentence formulation is not too difficult to address. Because of the overlapping grammatical patters of English, ASL sentences are ordered in the same way, minus the small transition words. It appears as though I primarily use the disciplinary approach of philosophical linguistics. I grew up speaking English and so my understanding between logical thought and language is derived from an English perspective. Because of the overlapping characteristics of ASL and English, the link between logical thought and language of ASL doesn’t deviate much from my own native understanding of the language. Thus, it can almost feel as though that learning ASL is learning a different dialect of English.
Learning languages has always been a passion of mine and I went into learning Korean with no prior knowledge of the language. While English is my first language I do not think I have the best understanding of grammar in English. I’m not sure if it was my lack of comprehension of English or my middle and high school curricula, but I never really learned the English language through the lens of grammar or linguistics. Besides learning about terms like “hyperbole”, “metaphor”, and “simile” among others, I did not have to learn the components of the language in a structured way or classroom setting. The first time I really learned about grammar in a language was when I started taking in Spanish in seventh grade. During that time I learned what the different parts of language were that I just already knew in English. I had never learned what a past participle, direct or indirect object, or what relative pronouns were until I had to learn about them when learning a new language. In a lot of ways learning another language gave me the most insight into my own language.
With Korean I am still starting to try and understand its language components. I started out learning Korean from a phonetic focus as I started with just learning Hangul (consonants and vowels) and the sounds of Korean. I suppose that means I started learning Korean with segmental phonology. As Korean is a complex and well-established language it has all of the structures illustrated on the diagram on page 9 in Aitchison’s linguistics. As a beginner though, I have only experienced the innermost circles with phonetics and phonology so far. This week’s article offered two interesting routes of approaching a new language. One route moves from phonetics to phonology to morphology and syntax and ends with semantics. This approach moves from the innermost circle in the diagram to the outermost circle. The second route progresses from semantics to vocabulary to grammar to phonology and ends with phonetics. Neither route is better than the other but in my case since Korean is so different than English I have chosen the first approach to start with phonetics and move my way out of the circle.
As I become more comfortable with the sounds of Korean I will be able to start putting the sounds together to make words. Then I will be able to move into learning syntax and Korean grammar. One interesting part of Korean grammar is Korean sentence structure. In English, we use a Subject-Verb-Object structure and in Korean the order is Subject-Object-Verb. I am used to a sentence like “She gave me an apple.” but in Korean the sentence becomes “She apple gave me.” While this is confusing, it is an essential part of Korean syntax for me to understand. I read on a website that a good rule to help me with Korean sentence structure is to always end my sentences with a verb or adjective. There is a lot for me to learn about syntax in Korean so I imagine I will stay in this “bubble” and study this structure of the language for a while. Once I start to get a grasp on the syntax I can move to the realm of semantics. It will be a while until I can fully understand the outer circles and their place in the Korean language. That being said I do agree with the range of areas that occupy the outermost circle that are a part of language. I am grateful for learning about the layers and structure of language so that I may understand how to approach a language better and can focus on certain aspects of it. This week’s reading has humbled me and reassured me that I need to start small and cannot dive head first into learning Korean. For now, I will continue to really understand, phonetics, phonology, and syntax.
Website I consulted:
https://www.optilingo.com/blog/korean/beginners-guide-to-basic-korean-grammar/
So far in my language learning, I have learned the constants and vowels in Korean. Phonetics and phonology are very important in learning this language. Korean constants are grouped into three categories: plain, aspirated, and tense. Plain is very soft sounds compared to the other two and its voiceless (sounds like /k/) at the beginning of a word but voiced (sounds like /d/) between two voiced sounds. Aspirated is strong and sort of has a forceful expulsion of air. Tense doesn’t require any aspiration, and it is a very intensive sound. For example, plain is ㄱ, aspirated is ㅋ, and tense is ㄲ. I don’t think phonology or phonetics is the ‘best’ direction to study Korean, but I do think it is important to study for this language. I have been having trouble since phonetics is important, but I hadn’t approached learning Hangul that way. I think understanding the subtle differences in sounds will make it easier as I continue to work to speak Korean.
When I learned Spanish, formal and informal language existed to an extent when referring to "you". In Korean, the distinctions are even greater as I have noticed from Korean dramas when characters change their style of speaking with elders. Unlike English, in Korean when referring to yourself, there are two ways to say “I” or “me.” In informal situations 나 is used, while 저 is used in formal situations.
Syntax will also be a level important once I get into learning the grammar. Korean and English grammar aren’t completely different, but the way sentences are constructed vary. In English typically we have subject-verb-object pattern. So, someone will say “I washed the dishes” but if you translate it into Korean, it will be “I the dishes washed.” This is just one of the differences. As I learn grammar next and learn how to put together sentences, I think the differences will be more evident. Although it may sound wrong initially, because it’s not the syntax I am used to, understanding that the order in which the words appear is different in the Korean language(objects coming before verbs) will help in learning other parts of the Korean language too. As I get further in Korean, I can see even more structures being evident in the language. I think the different structures complicate learning the language initially as a beginner if focus is given to every level as it's too much to grasp at once. At the same time, I also think understanding and using the levels as a tool gives a deeper understanding of the language and culture.