Tags and Languages

My first topic for this post is more blog-related, basically that I've started implementing tags. I've seen them used in several other language/linguistics-related blogs, but some of them were so narrowly defined, I found it was ridiculous to even bother using them. So, I've decided to use some relatively broad categories, which will probably get narrower as I continue my study in linguistics. (I think my current working categories are: Typography, Orthography, SLA, Linguistics, Languages, Grammar ...?) In case you're wondering, typography refers to the design of type, while orthography refers to the writing system in general. (So, the difference between writing in English and Japanese is a question of orthography; the difference between Baskerville Old Face and Garamond is a matter of typography).

...and on to languages. the SLA tag will probably appear more and more, now that I'm in this new Applied Language Studies option in school. It's only an option; not even counted as a minor. But I already have one of those, so I guess it's okay... Anyway. From my studies and readings, I've been learning more and more about language development and bilingualism, which invariably leads me to recall past conversations with other non-professional linguists. More of my friends either speak a second language, or have studied at least two other languages apart from the official national language (English), which I suppose is considered pretty extraordinary, given that I don't live in Europe. Well, I suppose it could also say something about the number of friends I have, but... So, most of the people I end up talking to about language will invariably and almost definitely have their own experiences, memories, and opinions about language learning and bilingualism. Things like what it means to be "truly" bilingual, or what "fluency" means. Optimal age of learning a second language, and effects on cognitive development. And for the most part, these are lively and engaging discussions.

But as we know from psych 101 and courthouses, anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence. Everybody's experiences will be unique, and particularly more so because of the perceptual bias in interpreting one's own experiences. And that's fine. That in itself is an eye-opener, to see how others in similar situations would interpret things differently. But sometimes, I wish that some of the people I talk to would be more willing to go beyond their own experiences and just accept mine look to some researched authority for a better understanding of the general phenomena of, say, bilingualism.

So, having personally been raising in a multilingual environment, I would class myself as a simultaneous bilingual. And on the whole, I'm fairly confident that my language development wasn't hindered or retarded by the presence of "contesting" languages vying for brain space. And, thankfully, the research seems to agree with me. Some of my former peers, however, labour under the misapprehension that the opposite is true. I suppose such myths must exist for all disciplines, but since the one I'm interested in is language, I tend to focus on that. So, popular myths relating to language include things like the CPH (Critical Period Hypothesis), which basically states that beyond a certain age (puberty, by most counts), individuals will be unable to master a second language. Others are the previously hinted bilingualism myth, that raising a child in a multilingual environment will slow that child's development or otherwise impair its cognitive skills. Yet another popular one is that there is such a thing as "perfection" in language, and therefore, that there also exists "corruption" of language, even though language is always in a fluid and dynamic state of change.

The Adventure for Amazingly August Adjectives

Also, amorous assonance. *heart* Although I actually do enjoy the majuscule A from a typographical point of view (and therefore from a calligraphic view as well), it's strangely not my favourite letter of the alphabet. (Naturally, of course, this worldview changes when I'm getting letter grades on my essays and assignments. Then I want all A's, baby!) Anyway. I'm sitting in the reading room (or quiet study room) in the Student Life Centre on campus, trying to think up a slightly less homophilic title for a friend's photo album (working title: "Boys of Summer"), and this naturally led to the desire to form an adjective for "summer". Summery? summerly? summerian? The first two are actually words that pertain to summer, but it's still not what I wanted. And here is where OED fails again. I've mentioned it before, so I don't see the need to expand on it again. But basically, I needed to look elsewhere for a list of season-related adjectives. And thus, I chanced upon a site that offered them. And so, the four adjectives for the four seasons!

• Spring = Vernal
• Summer = Estival
• Autumn = Autumnal
• Winter = Hibernal

"autumnal" is perhaps the most transparent of the four, and also the best known for its collocation "equinox," whence one might also find "vernal." However, given the relative obscurity of both terms, I suppose they're still only known by about 5% of the English-speaking population. (NB: "5%" is not a statistically researched number; it is based on the extremely volatile intuition of the former honours mathematics student) As for "Æstival" and "Hibernal," I think the salience is even weaker.
Yay! As any good poet or wordsmith knows, there are also adjectives that describe colours (which are already adjectives). That's why we have crimson, scarlet, vermilion and sanguine to describe 'red' without having to resort to fruits (unlike, say, "pomegranate red," or "lemon yellow," etc...) Personally, I think that resorting to precious gems is sorta pushing it as well (ie emerald green, ruby red, sapphire blue, etc.)
Just a quick post for now; more serious post to come soon! :D

Vexels

This would technically go under typography, but between my two blogs, this one needed updating more. Anywhoo...

About a month ago, I decided to watch the documentary Helvetica, which was made in 2007. It was made to celebrate the 50th birthday of the font. Having already a steady interest in typography, the documentary for me was informative, but not exactly revolutionary. It certainly attuned me to the prevalence of Helvetica and Arial in regular signs though.

Fastforwarding to the present, I was wandering around one of the buildings on campus to look for an office. I'm on the third floor, where there's a large printed directory listing the more key offices (eg. Dean's office, janatorial staff, Deparment Chairs, etc.). This is already a step up from the conservative letter bits that are pushed into rows of black cushions, but there was one major problem with this printed directory -- it was rasterised!

Anyone who knows anything about type knows that you'd have to be pretty ignorant or stupid to rasterise text. I would be willing to guess that the person who did it made it in photoshop, in the depressingly mistaken impression that it was inherently better than MS Word. (Which, in the realm of pixel graphics is pretty true, but not when it comes to type-setting and word-processing.)

Well, I suppose it's possible that they made it in too low a resolution, which would have produced the same result. Basically, if you have to print in non-vector mode, make it a high-enough resolution for the reading to be comfortable. I similarly recently received a script/work report from one of my students in the Japanese course I TA, and the first thing I noticed wasn't the gaudy use of colour, but the fact that all the text was in a hideously rasterised low-resolution. Also, the pagination was done in Arial, which I also tend to be unimpressed with.

So kids, two things to remember when you're printing media that have both graphics and text: Either keep the text elements as text (ie vector-friendly), or have the entire thing a reasonably high resolution to prevent poor print quality. If I can see that the miniscule [o] is 8x8 pixels, there's a problem with your resolution.