Number of Russian Speakers Increasing?

I started off with an article paraphrasing a statement made by the Counselor of the Russian Embassy in Ukraine, Vsevolod Loskutov. The claim was that the "use of the Russian language in Ukraine will boost the country's competitiveness in light of Russia's growing influence worldwide." This, to me, is quite a bold claim. I wondered if this claim implied that the Russian language was gaining influence throughout the world. I set out to try to find out how many Russian speakers there are today compared to the time of the USSR, but couldn't find this information.

However, what facts did come up is that there are about 150 million native speakers of Russian, and between 220-300 million total Russian speakers. Depending on the ranking system you look at, Russia falls between 4-7 as one of the most widely spoken languages in the world. So there is some substance to Loskutov's claim. Russian is also seen as a unifying commonality amongst all countries once under the rule of the Soviet Union, as well as Russian speakers who are abroad. An excerpt from a Russian Public Chamber member Alexei Chadayev, speaking about the need to provide information in Russian:

"A language cannot evolve without promptly tagging new phenomena and embracing new knowledge about the world. It quickly goes stale unless it is also used for writing news reports, novels, poems, research papers and business and personal letters. As for Russian help to foreign-based Russian-language media, the focus must be on the most agile and popular ones and also on those with particular interest in Kremlin-defined modernization avenues including energy, telecommunications, IT, biotechnology and aerospace. "

To further support of Russian's continuing strong existence, 62% of Belarussians, 43% of Kazakhstanians, and 38% of Ukrainians claim Russian as the primary language spoken at home (even more speak both Russian and the state's official language at home) according to a study done in 2007 by V.A. Tishkov. This could be attributed to the large amount of Russian media available in these countries, and the once mandatory teaching of Russian under the Soviet Union.

I find it interesting that such a strong emphasis is placed on doing research and providing information in Russian in order to increase its international economic stance. If we do choose to look at language as a influential force in the economic and residential sphere, we are left also to ponder about whether it is worth it, economically, to revive old languages. If the more popular languages are what gives a country economic competitiveness, reviving old languages would remain as a personal pleasure. In essence, knowing a dying language may not be valuable in economics.

Reference:

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/05/22/8300689.html

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/05/23/8330556.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/8mk9305667621w66/fulltext.pdf

http://www.languagehelpers.com/languagefacts/russian.html

Arizona law and the language of debate

The new Arizona law allowing police officer to question a persons legal status upon "reasonable suspicion" has caused quite a stir across the nation. Cities across the nation have even taken to boycotting business with Arizona, for fear that their new law will cause an increase of unreasonable racial profiling. The deeper issue, however, are the problems with illegal/legal immigration. Citizens across the country cry foul at the supposed wrongs that illegal immigrants bring to citizens, such as "stealing jobs" by accepting low wages.

An article by Kevin Drum from the journalism site Mother Jones comments that the upset actually is more cultural and language angst rather than economic worries. But what was also interesting was reading the comments on the article, and looking at the language choices of the readers when discussing this issue of cultural, linguistic, and economic worries.

Some often used words and phrases:

illegal immigrants

aliens

accepting low wages

consuming tax money

we are all immigrants

legal and illegal

average citizen

foreign languages

assimilation

racism

Overall, despite any research an article might mention or if it is sided pro or con illegal immigration, there is a general economic and cultural worry. Often the cons are defending themselves against racism, and categories such as citizen, legal, and illegal classify people in groups ranging from superior to alien (respectively). Historically, there was always argument against immigration in the United States for fear of some cultural overhaul. The difference between now and then is that racism used to be "acceptable." Now, many people are arguing the same battles but with politically correct language in an effort to (at least what some say) mask their underlying racism. The question I am now considering is whether or not such politically correct language truly marks racist and stereotypical ideas we claimed to have eliminated? Is it simply a resurface of old ideas in new language?

Reference:

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/05/immigration-and-economy

Necessity of Language in the Medical Field

I read an article from a surgeon speaking about the current need for Spanish-speaking doctors. There are 34 million foreign people, and in big cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, English for many patients is a second language. Doctors now worry that even though they have no part in the new laws in Arizona, that patients wont come in for fear of being questioned. Their ailments can then worsen.

As of now, many hospitals rely on telephone lines that connect them to translators when they are unable to speak with a patient, Spanish or other (and apparently family members are not always trustworthy translators). Patients do feel a sense of relief when they are finally able to be understood.

"So I picked up the phone and dialed into the language line. I put it on speaker so she and her daughter could hear. "Brotha," the patient responded with an instant smile. (Ibo and English must overlap.) The medical translator was on the phone from South Carolina. By the end, my patient had all her questions answered and seemed much more at ease with the prospect of surgery. I also know how to greet my next Ibo patient."

However, with the exception of languages rarer in the US, I think there is a valid need for more doctors who speak multiple languages, such as Spanish and Chinese. In my Spanish for medical students class fall quarter, I was tearing down not only the language barrier that may exist between me and my future patients, but also cultural barriers. It simply is not enough to know a language, because with it come cultural traditions. For example, many Spanish patients may be treating themselves with "zumos," or home remedies. With American doctors, they may fear talking about it for fear of ridicule. It also has to be understood why some Spanish patients may say that they haven't been taking their medicine (they may believe it should only be taken when they are feeling worse). Other Spanish patients suffer from depression because of problems at home (family is very important, traditionally), and may not go to appointments at all because they wish to stay at home. By simply knowing Spanish vocabulary, all of these warning signs may be missed. With language must come a cultural understanding so the patient, especially immigrants, will feel comfortable and safe.

Reference:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/weekly/20100510_Scrubbing_In__It_s_critical_to_speak_patient_s_language.html

More on how brains learn language

In the article about brain aphasia (couple posts down), we saw the possibility of languages being learned in seperate areas of the brain. Studies also showed that languages learned later in life did not use Broca's area, unlike first languages, suggesting a critical period for the plasticity of Broca's area. However, a study done at the University of Rochester showed that much of our use of language lies in the adaptability of different parts of our brain, not necessarily special areas that differentiate us from other species.

Researchers found that we use different parts of our brain to interpret different types of grammar. Two types of grammer studies was "word-order" sentences, and inflectional sentences. Word-order sentences are what we use in English, subject - verb - object. Ex: Sally greets Bob. We are able to tell by the word order who is the subject performing the action. Languages such as Spanish use reflexive verbs to convey subject-object relationships. Researchers created a study using american sign language, which uses both types of grammar. The results showed that we used parts of brain designed to accomplish other cognitive tasks to determine the subject-object relationships when they showed videos to sign language users.

"In fact, Newman said, in trying to understand different types of grammar, humans draw on regions of the brain that are designed to accomplish primitive tasks that relate to the type of sentence they are trying to interpret. For instance, a word order sentence draws on parts of the frontal cortex that give humans the ability to put information into sequences, while an inflectional sentence draws on parts of the temporal lobe that specialize in dividing information into its constituent parts, the study demonstrated."

We are left with several questions based on this study. 1) What differentiates our brain from other animals that allows us to develop sophisticated spoken language? 2) How does this explain brain aphasia, and the 13-year old's inability to speak Croation after a coma? and 3) Will this change how we teach language to stroke victims? If they have a stroke in their frontal cortex, should we try to teach them an inflectional language?

Reference:

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_how-the-human-brain-learns-language_1377227

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3610