How do we communicate?

ElizabethB said:
In the US we are spoiled to a single language system - American English. A shame. So many of you across the pond are bilingual or multi lingual. A necessity for doing business. I am embarrassed by my lack of language. We are a vain, arrogant nation. We think that all nations should speak our language. The sad thing is that our elected leaders have a very poor concept of the use of language. OOOKAY - I will not get on a rant.

@MypinchofItaly :thankyou: for a very interesting topic of conversation.
Click to expand...

@ElizabethB thank to you and to all to join this thread with all your interesting posts!
There is an Italian roman comedian that once makes me laugh a lot during one of his shows made this joke: "Lucky American / English children" and the voiceover asked: "why?" and he said: "because they do not have to study English!" :laugh:..sorry me but you made me remember him..
However, I certainly do not allow myself to enter the political issues of other countries, in Italy English is the first foreign language practically mandatory, French as a second. The school provides necessary and competent tools for teaching foreign languages, but I think the point is different. We have the dubbing of everything that comes from abroad, everything. Sure nowadays you can watch movies and TV series in the original language and this is good and is very used, but the dubbing is rooted in our DNA now. It is a legacy of a certain kind of past. I studied dubbing myself, but I realize that it has taken away a big chunk of the English approach.
Latin language (the real Italian language) is compulsory mostly for religious, humanistic or jurisprudence studies.
 
Last edited:
I still prefer to watch films in their original language with subtitles. When I was in Austria, most the films at the local village "cinema" were British or US films with subtitles. It was very handy to see the German words and hear the English ones. In Greece, however, a lot of the films were Turkish ones with Greek subtitles. Some of them were very good. We don't get much opportunity to see Turkish films in the UK even now. The funniest thing though was watching "Coronation Street" which was dubbed into Greek. The only thing that annoys me about subtitles and dubbing is that they don't always follow the original language exactly, although the gist of the story is there, and I can't stand "live" subtitles such as in news programmes.
 
Elawin said:
I still prefer to watch films in their original language with subtitles. When I was in Austria, most the films at the local village "cinema" were British or US films with subtitles. It was very handy to see the German words and hear the English ones. In Greece, however, a lot of the films were Turkish ones with Greek subtitles. Some of them were very good. We don't get much opportunity to see Turkish films in the UK even now. The funniest thing though was watching "Coronation Street" which was dubbed into Greek. The only thing that annoys me about subtitles and dubbing is that they don't always follow the original language exactly, although the gist of the story is there, and I can't stand "live" subtitles such as in news programmes.
Click to expand...

I agree. Dubbing doesn't always follow exatly the original language. When I watch original language movies I'm surprised by how some words or espressions don't match with translation. And so also for some Titles. Some of their translation are ridicoules and I think that maybe it's a marketing matter. I like to listen the original language in the movies.
 
MypinchofItaly said:
I agree. Dubbing doesn't always follow exatly the original language. When I watch original language movies I'm surprised by how some words or espressions don't match with translation. And so also for some Titles. Some of their translation are ridicoules and I think that maybe it's a marketing matter. I like to listen the original language in the movies.
Click to expand...
Some books are as bad too. I have a lot of German books that were originally in English and the translations definitely do not match the original in a lot of places. I realise that not all phrases or colloquialisms can be translated exactly without losing their original meaning or making them sound ridiculous, but I am sure sometimes the translator has lost the plot :laugh: Or maybe it is just that when I was in Germany I worked for a translating agency which translated mainly technical manuals (workshop manuals for anything from fridges to cars and trucks) and there could be no leeway in translating those!
 
I've always thought of human interaction as an advanced version of how animals interact in the wild. A gazelle sees a lion, and knows to run away. If a gazelle sees another animal with similar worrisome characteristics (sharp teeth, big claws, muscular build), they will likewise be wary. So, the gazelle knows to avoid leopards and cheetahs.

I do believe that humans do this, too, even if we don't realize it. Sometimes, it's literal (i.e., you look like someone I don't trust, so I'm inclined to not trust you). Other times, it's based on certain cues (such as confirming that you support a certain political party, or have certain view on a hot-button topic). People can be willing to completely shut you down, or suddenly trust you, based on such cues.

I mention this at all because there's no denying their effect on communication. The talk about parents who lost their eyesight made me think of this: seeing the other person adds complexity to the communication, rather than improving it. I think most people are uncomfortable with speaking in front of large groups, but don't have any problem at all writing a post that large groups of people read. This is because all those external factors that affect communication are stripped away: it's just you and your words, and anyone can read them. You might change what you write, because you care about what other people think, but you would likely always have the courage to write it.
 
Duck59 said:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

This is generally attributed to Voltaire, though there seems to be a doubt about whether he used these words or whether this is a mistranslation.
Click to expand...
"The Friends of Voltaire" by Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

I've just checked, having been certain it was some American lawyer speaking to an infamous client, in the early 1900's.
 
The Late Night Gourmet said:
I think most people are uncomfortable with speaking in front of large groups, but don't have any problem at all writing a post that large groups of people read. This is because all those external factors that affect communication are stripped away: it's just you and your words, and anyone can read them.
Click to expand...

This is very true on one level. But I don't think its the only reason. One might be forgiven for thinking its the anonymity which allows or encourages people to say things they wouldn't otherwise say - after all, on many internet forums we don't know each other in 'real life'. We are not working together in paid employment nor are we likely to run into each other on the street.

But you know, it isn't the anonymity which somehow releases inhibition. I say this because I worked in a large University. It was quite extraordinary how many members of staff would say all kinds of things in email communications that they would never say 'face to face'. And yet they did know each other. As a manager I often had to arbitrate 'spats' which occurred via email. Spats which would not have occurred face to face.

There is something about 'text' which is one staged removed in an odd way. And I don't think its just the absence of visual presence.
 
Perhaps communication is enhanced when words are written or typed. It takes a moment to process a thought and type it out. When speaking a thought flits across the mind and comes out of the mouth with little or no consideration of how the comment may be heard. Tone of voice and body language can turn an innocuous comment into hurtful words. When writing or typing I find that I give more consideration to how the recipient will "hear" my words.
 
morning glory said:
This is very true on one level. But I don't think its the only reason. One might be forgiven for thinking its the anonymity which allows or encourages people to say things they wouldn't otherwise say - after all, on many internet forums we don't know each other in 'real life'. We are not working together in paid employment nor are we likely to run into each other on the street.

But you know, it isn't the anonymity which somehow releases inhibition. I say this because I worked in a large University. It was quite extraordinary how many members of staff would say all kinds of things in email communications that they would never say 'face to face'. And yet they did know each other. As a manager I often had to arbitrate 'spats' which occurred via email. Spats which would not have occurred face to face.

There is something about 'text' which is one staged removed in an odd way. And I don't think its just the absence of visual presence.
Click to expand...
You're also removed, by one step more than a letter, from those who'll be reading it. Even if you happen to work in the same place.
 
ElizabethB said:
Perhaps communication is enhanced when words are written or typed. It takes a moment to process a thought and type it out. When speaking a thought flits across the mind and comes out of the mouth with little or no consideration of how the comment may be heard. Tone of voice and body language can turn an innocuous comment into hurtful words. When writing or typing I find that I give more consideration to how the recipient will "hear" my words.
Click to expand...
To use the words posted earlier, "Nay Lad".
It can be a simple no. As in an answer to a question, "Do you know where the nearest bank is?"
A refute. I did not!, "You said the nearest bank was just over there".
A simple put down. Stop being silly, "Yes you did, you said that it was over there!"

A lot depends on the tone of voice used, speed of delivery and the body language used. None of which carries over into the written word very well, without further additional information.
 
One advantage of writing posts is that you can edit them if you get something wrong or add to them (or write an additional post, of course) if you forget to put something. When talking to someone face to face, you don't always have the time to be able to do this.
 
The Late Night Gourmet said:
I've always thought of human interaction as an advanced version of how animals interact in the wild. A gazelle sees a lion, and knows to run away. If a gazelle sees another animal with similar worrisome characteristics (sharp teeth, big claws, muscular build), they will likewise be wary. So, the gazelle knows to avoid leopards and cheetahs.

I do believe that humans do this, too, even if we don't realize it. Sometimes, it's literal (i.e., you look like someone I don't trust, so I'm inclined to not trust you). Other times, it's based on certain cues (such as confirming that you support a certain political party, or have certain view on a hot-button topic). People can be willing to completely shut you down, or suddenly trust you, based on such cues.

I mention this at all because there's no denying their effect on communication. The talk about parents who lost their eyesight made me think of this: seeing the other person adds complexity to the communication, rather than improving it. I think most people are uncomfortable with speaking in front of large groups, but don't have any problem at all writing a post that large groups of people read. This is because all those external factors that affect communication are stripped away: it's just you and your words, and anyone can read them. You might change what you write, because you care about what other people think, but you would likely always have the courage to write it.
Click to expand...

yes there are those who worry about what others think or even have the opportunity to express themselves better not having distractions around. The signs you write about can refer to the feelings that, strange but true, can be understood even by email or messages, etc. I think that we are normally also attracted by some key words that we recognize as familiar because they remind us of something familiar or that we share ..
 
Yesterday someone has posted on a fb group a pic about a billboard with this adv sentence to promote their products (unknown):
" Maybe the best way to relax", with a big drawed arrow to follow.
The most popular comments were "what a genious!" (Ironically) or "not a good idea" or even "failed marketing" or " if you are not sure about what you sell"... the focus was on the Maybe word. But honestly this adv has intrigued me, giving me a nice sensation. I think they wanted to play with words, unconventionally. What do you think of it? Failed or success? Curiousity or to ignore?
 
Something I have always been interested in is accents and how they evolve over time. Regional accents in the UK are incredibly varied. For example, I lived in Oxford for a number of years and there were, I would say, three basic accents. There was what I would call rural Oxford, which had a kind of country burr to it. There was posh Oxford, which is reasonably self-explanatory and then there was a kind of London-overspill Oxford, which was more like the "estuary English" you get in and around London. There were, of course, mixtures of accents somewhere between these, but essentially, there were three different accents.

Another place where you find distinctly different accents is the border town of Berwick. Being on the border of England and Scotland, this has even more variety. Some people have a noticeably Scottish accent, while others have the accent of rural Northumberland. Then you get people with the Geordie accent of Newcastle. Others have accents that are half way between Scottish and Geordie. It's quite a mix.

Of course, as people move around more and more, local accents change over time. There was a very good programme on the BBC a few years ago that looked at this. Someone had discovered some old recordings in a vault in Berlin. These recordings were of British POWs from the First World War and the programme makers had managed to track down some of their descendants. One family lived in the town of Swindon, in Wiltshire. They were amazed at how rural and West Country the accent of their forebear sounded. Their own accents were somewhat closer to the mix of rural and estuary Oxford accent I described above (Swindon is quite near Oxford). There were similar instances with other people featured in the programme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom