Amazon.com Widgets
I’m not mad.  Really.

About Ramblings of a Hopeless Khowaga

Welcome to my Web site. My name is Chris, and I’ll be your host. I live in Austin, Texas, with my partner, Ray, and our child dog, Mocha. You can read more about me, learn 100 random things about me, and if you’re wondering what the heck a khowaga is, click here. Feel free to browse, read, and leave comments!

Tag: ‘languages’



Confessions of an Arabic Learner

Friday, December 11th, 2009

The other day whilst trying to set up an appointment to discuss a project with our associate chair, she mentioned casually that she couldn’t meet one afternoon because she was supposed to be on Wisconsin Public Radio.

“Really?  Why?”
“I’m … not actually sure,” she said.  “They want to talk about learning Arabic?”

Well, the interview is now online, and it’s quite the doozy.  For those not inclined to listen to the whole 54 minutes, the first five will do it — it’s long enough to establish the following:

  1. The woman doing the interview is a complete idiot.
  2. The woman doing the interview did absolutely no research on how to pronounce the name of the book that she’s supposedly basing the entire interview around (“Al-Kitaab fi ta’alum al-’arabiyya” — she shortens it to “Al-Kitaab,” which means “the book” and would be pronounced as a mashup of the two common English words “kit” and “tab” as they are pronounced by Americans.  Not only can she not do this, she actually changes the way she pronounces it over the course of the hour several times).
  3. The woman doing the interview clearly did not ask one of her interviewees, Mahmoud al-Batal, how to pronounce his name, as she consistently pronounces it wrong (and, again, her pronunciation changes over the course of the hour) — which, I’m sorry, is a horribly egregious error.  I’ve had people make sure they’re pronouncing MY name correctly before, and my name is pretty damned easy.
  4. The goal of the interview is to make learning Arabic sound as difficult as humanly possible.  Whether this was the stated goal or not, I don’t know, but I was alternately amused and astonished by her inability to move beyond the fact that Arabic is read and written from right-to-left (and also to find out exactly why this is — including, if possible, assigning personal blame for it).

My favorite part of the hour is that you can practically hear the two interviewees looking at each other and trying to nonverbally work out how to respond without calling the interviewer a complete moron.

Anyway, for those who are so inclined, here are some reflections about learning Arabic that I’d like to share.  This is based not only on my knee jerk reaction to this interview, but from the 16 years of experience I’ve had being a white guy learning and speaking Arabic and responding to  questions from those who do not.

Things that are not actually difficult about learning Arabic as a foreign language.

1. The alphabet (more correctly in this case, it’s an abjad).  Arabic has an actual alphabet.  Each letter stands for a specific consonant sound.  It’s not written in characters.  Once you learn the alphabet–which took about three weeks when I started, but that’s because Arabic 101 only met twice a week–it’s a non-issue, and you don’t have to revisit it ever again unless you decide to take up a language that uses the same alphabet but has more letters (Persian, Urdu, and Malaysian, for example), in which case you’ll have to learn the new letters.  It’s really not that hard.

2. Arabic is always written in cursive — even when it’s printed or typed.  It was bewildering the first time that my Arabic instructor, having taught us the letters a, l, k, t, and b (ا ل ك ت ب) put them all together to form “alktab” (al-kitaab, الكتاب), “the book”.  You stare at it for about 10 seconds, and then it clicks.  By the end of the first class of 101, this is not an issue anymore.  I’ve done this with 6th graders.  They can get it.  It’s really not that hard.

Explaining this to Hollywood, on the other hand, is another story.  I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve seen Arabic text in the background that doesn’t connect — which, frankly, renders the text unreadable.  Most recently, some characters on the show “FlashForward” traveled to Hong Kong looking for Shohreh Aghdashloo (who must be desperate for work), and stopped by an Iranian restaurant she was known to frequent.  The restaurant’s sign was in English and Persian (written with the Arabic alphabet) … and the Persian letters didn’t connect.

I also once saw improperly formed Arabic tatooed on a guy in a Sean Cody video.  Poor guy.

3. Sounds that aren’t in English. Once you learn how to say them properly, you get over it.  However, contrary to popular belief, there are actually four H sounds in Arabic, and only one of them sounds like forming a spit ball.  The alphabet is fully phonetic — every letter has one sound.  And it’s always the same sound.  Unlike English.  Contemplate, if you will, the utter uselessness of the letters c and x sometime — both simply replicate sounds produced by other letters — x has no unique functions (it can be represented as “eks”), and c’s only unique function is in the syllable “ch” as in “choose”.  K and q aren’t as differentiated as they ought to be — as in, for example, the Arabic ك  and ق

4. Reading and writing from right to left. Although our interviewer gets hung up on this, it’s probably the biggest non-issue of them all.  It just is.

5. The lack of a “be” verb. There is no verb “to be” in Arabic (it’s a Semitic language quirk — there isn’t one in Hebrew, either).  “be” is implied.  To say you’re a student, you say, انا طالب, which is literally “I student.”  The “am” is implied.

Things that are more difficult about learning Arabic as a foreign language.

1. The non-writing of vowels. Like every other Semitic language out there (except, apparently, Amharic, which at some point gave in), along with a number of other languages that use abjads, vowels — specifically short vowels — are not written.  Normally this isn’t such a problem, however, to continue with our example, let’s look at ktb — كتب.  It could be “kutub” (books), it could be “kataba” (he wrote), or it could be “kutiba” (it was written).  You have to figure it out from context, which is a bit of an advanced skill.

2. The lack of cognates with English. The running joke when learning Spanish is that you can add “o” to the end of an English word and make it a Spanish word.  It’s usually not true, but it’s based on the number of cognates between the two languages — words that are similar enough in form and meaning that speakers of one can understand the other.  In Arabic, however, you can’t add “al-” to the front of an English word and make it correct — it’s kind of a crutch that the non-fluent but advanced speakers can use when speaking to a bilingual crowd so as not to break stride — I’ve thrown English words in when I don’t know the Arabic ones — but it doesn’t work in casual conversation.  The only cognates you’re likely to find are ones that were English to begin with: al-internet.  al-kumbyootir.  ad-dimuqraasiya. at-tiknuluujiya.

3. The lack of a “be” verb.  Where the lack of the be verb gets tricky is in the way the language has compensated for it — while there is not a verb for “to be,” there IS what my first Arabic instructor went to very great pains to make sure that we all understood was definitely NOT a verb for “to not be.”  Similarly, there is a not-verb for “to have been.”  Never mind that both look, smell, sound, and function like verbs in every other way, except, of course, for the fact that they’re not verbs.  Dammit.

4. There are no irregular verbs in Arabic. There are 500 regular verbal patterns, 495 of which only apply to one verb each.

5. Broken plurals. Similarly, there are lots of patterns for pluralizing words … and many of them are really irregular.  Grad students like to sit around and make up broken plurals for English to amuse themselves, which is how we decided a few years ago that the plural of “Bi-otch” is “Bowatchaa’”

6. Diglossia.  This is probably the biggest challenge for the learner of Arabic as a foreign language.  “Arabic” — the language that is taught in a classroom, is often Modern Standard Arabic, a constructed high language based on the language of the Qur’an (but not necessarily mutually intelligible with it).  It is grammatically rigid, nuanced, and eloquent.  It is not, however, what people speak in their daily lives.  Countries, regions, cities all have their own dialects that are based on MSA, but have been influenced over the centuries by other factors.

The Egyptian dialect–the one I’m the most familiar with–contains both words of Turkish origin (from the four centuries of Ottoman rule) as well as words of Coptic origin (Coptic is the language of the Egyptian Christian church, and is descended from the ancient Egyptian language).  In fact, I have a book on my shelf that outlines the number of words in Egyptian Arabic that can be traced back to the days of the pharaohs.  The Moroccan dialect, by contrast, contains a lot of words that haven’t been used since the medieval period in other parts of the Arab world, as well as a lot of Berber and French.

When I first arrived in Egypt as an undergrad, I had two years of Modern Standard under my belt and found myself unable to communicate with another living soul.  Those who could speak Modern Standard usually tired of hearing me struggle and would switch to English, which they usually spoke better than I could speak Arabic.

New textbooks now introduce dialect early on — as well they should.  I couldn’t even agree with people — I’d been taught to use the formal na’am, while most people in the eastern Mediterranean actually say aywa.

A few thoughts to throw out there — Arabic is definitely a challenging language, but the things that most people get hung up on aren’t even an issue.  Get over the squiggly letters and the right-to-left, oh interviewers of the world!

And, for God’s sake, quite trying to figure out whose fault it is … yeesh.

Morbid Newshound

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009

For the past two days, I’ve been completely spellbound by the unfolding mystery of what happened to Air France 447.

There’s something of the locked-room mystery about the tale: passengers board a flight on a late autumn evening in Rio de Janeiro.  Among their numbers are the presidents of major corporations, doctors, lawyers, cabinet ministers, and, for a dash of complete exoticism, a handsome young prince, fourth in line to the Brazilian throne (never mind that the monarchy was abolished in the 1890s). The plane takes off, bound for Paris.  Dinner is served, the lights are dimmed.  Everything is routine.

Four hours into the flight, the plane passes over the northeastern coast of Brazil, heading for international waters.  The pilots report to Brazilian air traffic control that they’re passing out of their jurisdiction, and, as is usual when passing into an area that’s not covered by radar, they report the time that they expect to cross in to Senegalese airspace.  Some time later, the pilot reports thunderstorms and severe turbulence.  Then … nothing.  The plane never arrives in Senegalese airspace.  Calls fly back and forth between Recife and Dakar — no one can see the plane.  It never shows up on radar screens in Casablanca or Tolouse.  With the exception of a few automated messages received on a maintenance computer in Paris indicating that something has gone horribly, terribly wrong, the plane has, quite literally, disappeared.

There’s a compelling story in here, even if we try to fictionalize it.  But it’s not fiction, it really happened.  And, like lots of people everywhere, I want to know more.  Am I morbid?  Why?

There is, of course, the fear factor.  I’ve spent a good deal of time on airplanes, including ones that cross the ocean.  In less than a month, I’ll be flying transatlantic again–I’ve lost count, but I think this trip will be number 15 or 16.  I want to know what happened to AF 447 because I want some sort of reassurance that it’s not likely to happen on any flight I’m planning to take in the near future.

And then there’s the morbid part: what would it have been like to be on that plane?  *shivers*

For the past two days, I’ve spent a bit of time regularly checking updates as reported by the foreign media — back and forth between the Brazilian papers Folha do Sao Paolo and O Globo, the French newspaper Le Monde, and the message boards on Airliners.Net where polyglots helpfully translate articles in languages I can’t read.  (As a Spanish speaker, I find Portuguese easier to read than French … although clicking on the video clips that Globo has posted turned out to be pointless because, although I may be able to read Portuguese, I can’t understand the spoken language at all).

I’m also learning things about what the American press considers worthwhile.  One of the reasons why I had to break out the Spanish-Portuguese dictionary is that the English language media is doing a pretty bad job at updating the story regularly.  The Brazilian press reports every latest development, whereas BBC is running several hours behind, and CNN?  Fuggedaboutit.  Granted, it wasn’t a flight that came from the US, and there were other important goings on in the world yesterday (I refer, of course, to the Bruno/Eminem teabagging incident), but I still couldn’t help being a little snarky when I noticed that CNN became far more interested once it was known that two American citizens were on board.

Today, the world has caught up.  And the mystery is starting to clear, at least a little: although the aircraft would have run out of fuel a couple of hours after it missed its scheduled arrival time in Paris yesterday, it wasn’t until Brazil’s Minister of Defense announced that wreckage found in the Atlantic 700 miles northeast of Recife has been positively identified as belonging to Air France 447 that the media began using the word “crash.”

It’s a stunning tragedy — I feel a knot in my stomach whenever I see the images of relatives and friends arriving at the airports in Rio and Paris, trying to get more information.  They want what we all want: we want to know what happened. We want to find out it was quick.  We want to find out they didn’t know it was coming.  And we’re all pretty sure we’re wrong.

And I just can’t stop watching.

All Over for Another Year

Monday, March 9th, 2009

Another Explore UT has come and gone.

I have written extensively, year after year, about not liking this event.  This year, I fear was no different. The basic problem, I realize, is that I now have so much emotional baggage associated with it that there’s probably no way that I could ever actually enjoy the day (not that there’s much enjoyment to be had with 50,000 people invading campus).

Once upon a time, many years ago when I didn’t know better, my colleagues and I were dragged into a meeting with one of the staff people in the College of Liberal Arts.  The Dean at the time (or so we were told) had decided that he wanted to have a special area of the university’s annual open house event just for children.  And this staff person, knowing that we all do “outreach,” decided in her infinite and unquestionable — let me put that in Capitals to give them the appropriate weight — in her Infinite and Unquestionable Wisdom that “outreach” means “knows how to entertain small children.”  And so we were given the Royal Decree: do this, and make your Dean happy.

For the record, “outreach” does not mean “knows how to entertain small children.”  In our cases it means different things, but that’s really not one of them.  So, we had to search for little activities to do that might have some educational value.  Since we didn’t really want to be involved, we didn’t think too hard about it.

The year was something of a success.  So much so that, barely a few months later, we were pulled into another meeting with the same staff person.  “They really like the children’s fair,” she said.  “So, we need you all to stay all day.”
“Um,” we asked, “Can you provide us with the manpower to make that happen?”
“No.”
“How about some money to hire people?”
“No.”

All righty then.

And so we went forth.  We scrounged, threatened, pleaded, and, in some cases, bribed students to come and help us with the event, and thus did we entertain small children all day long.

A few months later, we were pulled into another meeting.  “This year, we need you to add a second event.  They want the fair bigger.”
“Um,” we said, “Can you provide us with some volunteers?  We had trouble getting enough people to staff the activities we did this year.”
“No,” she said.  “We don’t have any volunteers to spare for you.  Also, we want you to arrange performances.”
“Can we give you their names and have you deal with the performers?”
“No,” she said.  “You do it.”

And so … we went out for drinks, bitched a lot, and then went forth and somehow, by the skins of our teeth, managed to pull it off.  Barely.  Natalie nearly had a nervous breakdown in the middle of the day, and I recall a lot of swearing coming out of my mouth (we’ll pretend that this is different from the norm somehow).  I don’t even recall how the others fared because I never saw them during the course of the six hours that we were there.

So, when we were pulled into the meeting a few months later, we went in prepared to say, “We can’t do this much again on our own.  If you’re going to want a bigger children’s fair, you either need to promise us enough volunteers to make it happen, or you need to involve other units.  We’re tapped out.  And you need to hand off the performance coordination to a single person in the College because this ‘everyone coordinates their own’ thing is a bunch of crap.”

However, barely had the conversation begun when Her face darkened, the brow furrowed, and her voice turned gravely and belied the presence of possibly several demons from Hell in her inner soul.  “We … are … not … doing … LESS,” she hissed.

Dejected, we left, vowing some sort of awful revenge.  We had been told of other departments not being invited back.  What, we wondered collectively, would we have to do to not be invited back?

That year was probably the worst.  We didn’t want to be there, we didn’t want to be doing as much as we were, and it was incredibly hot.

The next year, both the Dean and the staff person were gone, and we were able to restructure everything to our wants: a single event for each of us, one co-coordinated table with name writing in different languages, and the College runs the performances. For all the complaining and dread, the past couple of years have gone relatively well.

None of this is to say, however, that I’m any happier about doing it.  For all that it’s gone relatively well, at some point during the annual push to do whatever we can do to increase attendance, just about all of the educational value has been lost. We spend the rest of our year designing high-impact programming that’s raved about.  We’ve gotten a standing ovation at a national conference of our peers.  People high in education around the state like us and what we do.  But what we do the first Saturday in March reflects none of that.

In short, I’m not particularly proud of what we do year after year.  And there seems to be no will to let us change it.

Last year, I finally had the bright idea to print out a little text box for the kids to glue to the back of their craft, explaining what it is and what it’s supposed to represent.  This year, most of the kids actually took the time to glue one on (last year, there was a lot of, “Wow, that looks boring”).  Do I think that, this morning, even half of them even remotely remember what they did or why?  No, not really.

And there’s the rub.

Oh, well.  Another year gone.  I can focus on other things … right up until this time next year, when I get to do it all over again.

Curses! Memed again

Monday, March 24th, 2008

My friend Cindy, who is a reporter living in Cairo with her husband, Mike, and their adopted daughter Maya, tagged me on her blog for yet another meme. Ugh! Too many memes, too little time.

I’ve known Cindy for years – we studied abroad in Cairo together, and we were both bitten by the Egypt bug. Hard. (Even worse in her case.)

Anyhoo, here’s the meme:

Rules of play:

  • Post 10 random things about yourself
  • Choose 5 people to tag and a reason you chose each person (can be totally nonsensical)
  • Leave them each a comment directing them to your blog so they know they are it
  • You can’t tag the person who tagged you (you’ll have to make new friends)
  • As a courtesy to the person who tagged you, please let them know when you have posted so they can have the sheer delight and extra work load of reading your answers

Play!!

10 more random things about myself … ugh.

OK, here goes.

  1. Despite my loud, outgoing and sometimes rambunctious nature, I am extremely insecure when it comes to issues where my feelings have been hurt, and am often at pains to express myself in such situations, even when I’ve brought up the subject myself.
  2. I’m a travel geek. I can happily stare at maps for hours on end, get lost reading guidebooks to places I have no particular plans to visit (it’s worse with places that I do plan to visit), and have a running airline timetable in my head. Ultimately, this makes me very good at spotting the stupid stuff that they do in movies. It bothers me to an unreasonable level that someone at ABC thought it was plausable that the fake wreckage of Oceanic flight 815 (a Sydney-to-LA flight) would be found off Bali and that no one would have noticed a plane flying over Indonesia with its transponder off. I mean, really. Do they think we’re idiots? (And don’t even get me started on Jessica Alba’s character flying American Airlines directly to Antarctica in Good Luck Chuck.)
  3. Demonstration of such geekiness: I have logged 127,406 unique air miles (that is, without counting routes I’ve flown multiple times). Even geekier? I have them all mapped out (click for larger view):

    Air Map 1Air Map 2

  4. Because I speak a number of languages to varying degrees, I am exceptionally useless when I find myself in a situation where I am unable to communicate with someone at all due to a language barrier. (Notable examples of languages I’ve recently discovered that “I can’t fake it” in include French and Portuguese.)
  5. Ocular trauma freaks me out. I can … and, lamentably, have … watched loads of slasher flicks. I’m fine right up until they start messing around with people’s eyes. Then I have to look away.
  6. I am extremely logical and find it very difficult to deal with people who base everything on emotion. One of the worst professional relationships I’ve had in my life was with a woman who literally seemed not to possess any logic skills — it was all about her emotions, and I found myself completely unable to justify anything to her on logic. It didn’t help that she seemed to think I was the Anti-Christ and that she was the only person who could stop my nefarious plots to do whatever the hell it was that I was plotting to do.
  7. If I were plotting nefariously, I would enjoy it very much, and you’d know about it. Thank you.
  8. At nearly every stage in my adult life there has been someone in my circle of friends, acquaintances, or coworkers who clearly suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Part of this goes back to what I said in number 6 — narcissists are only concerned with how things affect them on an emotional level. The low point was when I came to the long overdue realization that a ‘friend’ of mine only came into my life when he needed something from me and vanished otherwise — and he had made an art form out of putting the pressure tactics on. Saying no to him was literally impossible, as he had mastered the ability to make people realize that it took less effort to just do whatever completely unreasonable thing he was asking for than it would be to justify non-compliance. The low point occurred when I saw him coming toward me down the street and ducked into the nearest building to avoid talking to him … which turned out to be the University Baptist Church.
  9. Even though my triglycerides are high, I’m not giving up my wine. Dammit. A boy has to have some vices.
  10. I have a deep, unreasonable dislike of modern art. I know art is 9/10ths intent, but don’t ask me to look at a blank canvas with a tiny little red square on it and ask me to consider it “deep.” I can scribble on canvas and call it my interpretation of the depths of the soul’s despair at the plight of humanity, too. Anyone wanna give me a couple million for it? Didn’t think so.

Mmmkay. Tag time! Let’s get some new people in there.

1. I choose Shin because I know he’ll do it;

2. Danny because I’m curious to see what he’ll tell us;

3. Michael because he needs to get with the program;

4. Christine, because even though I can’t read her blog, I’m still curious;

5. Scooter, because he’s totally a random pick.

Diminishing Returns, or, Pure Terror, Part 2

Monday, February 11th, 2008

Well, since I blogged the experience, I may as well give you all the follow-up.

Today we got the results of the Arabic language proficiency tests that we took two weeks ago, and I’m left wanting more. Since I wrote the post from my perspective as the terrorized victim of a Kafka-esque experiment, I may not have mentioned that I was doing this as a guinea pig for people training to be testers. Basically, what would happen is that the interviews were conducted with the group — instructors and students — watching, and then after each individual interview was done, there would be discussion about each interviewer’s technique, what was done right, what was done wrong, etc.

The reason I’m explaining this is that I got only a partial result. Since the aim of the interview is to test one’s language proficiency, they establish a “floor” — this is basically where they can stop screwing around with trying to establish your language aptitude with broad swaths and actually begin engaging you in real exercises. The idea is that they then move you up the scale, increasing the difficulty until communication breaks down — either the point where you just don’t know the vocabulary and grammar, or the point where you’re unable to respond. The highest point at which you can negotiate communication successfully is generally considered your ACTFL level (American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages, they’re the ones who came up with this in the first place).

The reason that I only got a partial score is that my tester established a floor, but didn’t escalate the level of difficulty to establish the upper end of my language ability. Hence, they can tell me that I’m no lower than “Advanced-Low,” but can’t tell me what my overall score actually is because the conversation remained at Advanced-Low for the remainder of the interview.

What this means:

Speakers at the Advanced-Low level are able to handle a variety of communicative tasks, although somewhat haltingly at times. They participate actively in most informal and a limited number of formal conversations on activities related to school, home, and leisure activities and, to a lesser degree, those related to events of work, current, public, and personal interest or individual relevance.

Advanced-Low speakers demonstrate the ability to narrate and describe in all major time frames (past, present and future) in paragraph length discourse, but control of aspect may be lacking at times.

They can handle appropriately the linguistic challenges presented by a complication or unexpected turn of events that occurs within the context of a routine situation or communicative task with which they are otherwise familiar, though at times their discourse may be minimal for the level and strained. Communicative strategies such as rephrasing and circumlocution may be employed in such instances.

In their narrations and descriptions, they combine and link sentences into connected discourse of paragraph length. When pressed for a fuller account, they tend to grope and rely on minimal discourse. Their utterances are typically not longer than a single paragraph. Structure of the dominant language is still evident in the use of false cognates, literal translations, or the oral paragraph structure of the speaker ’s own language rather than that of the target language.

Reading through the criteria, I would suspect that, were I to take the test again under optimal circumstances, I would come out at Advanced-Mid, which is the step above my “floor,” but it’s impossible to say for sure without actually taking the test, which I won’t do again until I recover from the last time … :neutral:

And now I know!

 

Blog Theme by LJP & SLR Lounge