Talk:Language barrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick edits[edit]

I made some very quick edits to try to expand this topic a bit. While "language barrier" describes a certain reality, the term has almost become cliché and the assumptions behind it seem rarely to be considered when it is used. Hopefully this article can have significant editing and improvement. The external links re some constructed languages might best be moved to another article on that topic. --A12n 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Written Language Barriers Partially to Mostly Overcome With Traslation Systems[edit]

Written Language Traslation Systems Language barrier in Wikipedia or anywhere in the world of communication can be overcome atleast for the written media through autotranslation; link for this is given given here to convert any of languages listed in the program to another; conversion is automatic and on-the-fly. The translation may not be linguistically accurate in usage or contextual meaning.

  • Translates from original with original not shown [1]
  • Translates from original with original shown side by side [2]

With program systems such as above, it seems a Wikipedia page or any written text can be translated to another language on the list in the programs or similar program as may come to light. A high level discussion is needed for the Wikipedia opening page with the globe and multiple languages of the world shown, but has no discussion facility on that page. Wikipedia main page should include availabilty of Auto-Translation; page indicates distinctly that the page is only for the content of that page and no discusion page attached. This is the page where some form of this matter can be incorporated and will receive wider exposure of availabilty of Auto-Translation Systems. I will attempt to insert the same on the Main page also; this one is from a beginner with above link deleted twice from the External Links on Air France 447 page where I had established a translation using the the first Translation system link #1 above to translate the Brazilian Air Force Portal with lot of information on the progress of accident investigation. Feel free to help these re-establish link on Air France 447 page if appropriate.Patelurology2 (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Same Topic in Different Language Wikipedia- Divergence & Similarities in study of any subject[edit]

  • Different language Wikipedia pages for e.g. AF447 and respective talk pages need further study by active contributors of their respective language pages as an example of divergence and similarities in evolution of study of any subject at hand. e.g., a link for French page is noted here....French wikipedia page for AF447 ... Language is no barrier. Patelurology2 (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Against minority languages[edit]

I think the term has been used to stigmatize people who speak minority languages, i.e. speaking French or Spanish in the context of the growing influence of the English-language in the modern world. This could perhaps be noted in the article. ADM (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

New section proposed[edit]

Hi, I propose to introduce a new section to the Language Barrier article Since apparently there is conflict of interest when I write it. Which I don't think is the case ... Could you please look into it, change what you want in order to put it on the article as an additional angle to language barriers ... Thank you

Language barrier and development[edit]

Language barrier can be a serious handicap for economic development and international communications especially for the countries that do not use the English language as a medium of international communication, access to science, technology and foreign investments. Today, in several developing countries, mainly in Africa, this problem is real. Due to the historical backgound of the African countries and to the current situation in international relations, the majority of the African countries were imposed a foreign language during the era of foreign occupation or "colonization" by European countries. After the first wave of national independences, the majority of those African countries remained dependent on their former occupier since they spoke only its language, it was their only access to modernity, to science and technology.

This doesn't constitute at all a justification of foreign occupation or colonization. In the vast majority of cases, the African Countries were imposed models and systems that were designed for other contexts and weren't adapted to their cultural, geographical and local contexts. This explains in part the poor development levels achieved by those countries and the cultural schizophrenia between local and western states of mind. The evolution of the local cultures, systems and thinking never actually happened by the lack of appropriation of the progresses made by the west because of the forceful and brutal imposition by occupying forces of cultures and systems of thought that were always and still are widely percieved as foreign which is justified in many aspects but not regarding universal values (like equality and freedom) and systems (like public debate, democracy or scientific management).

Therefore, while the rest of the world continued its progress and achieved more and more interconnections, notably, by the adoption of the English language as international and commin language, these countries, were left behind, monopolized by one western country which constituted their only horizon, mainly due to the language barrier. This language barrier was often the result of deliberate policies aimed to maintain an area of influence for the former occupiers. Today, the governments of the African countries involved do not have enough "strength" to make the reforms necessary without being tamed by foreign pressures. They are therfore maintained in a chain of confinement and underdevelopment. --Mahdi.mrabet (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Hi Mahdi.mrabet! I am afraid that the section needs a complete rewrite to be appropriate. Since it makes a number of loaded and controversial statements, it needs to be appropriately sourced. Either that or the controversial statements (about 90% of the section) should be rewritten. I believe that if you did research on this subject, the easiest path for you is to introduce reliable secondary sourced. Some parts of the section will still need to go, like "This doesn't constitute at all a justification of foreign occupation of colonization"—which is pure editorializing—but if appropriate sources are introduced, the others parts can probably be kept. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Language barrier and migration section[edit]

I've placed a tag because of concern about the last two sentences in the section:

The United States, with its dominant Germanic English language, attracted primarily immigrants from Northern Europe, where Germanic tongues were spoken or familiar. Southern Europeans, such as Italians, were more likely to move to Latin American countries.

While that might be true, it is unsourced and potentially misleading. Other factors, such as immigration quotas, had a vast effect on who emigrated to the United States. Even a brief discussion of that topic is beyond the proper scope of this article, but the current wording implies that language was a primary—perhaps the primary—reason for different immigration rates from Southern and Northern Europe. If that's the case, it needs a reliable source. Otherwise, it sounds like original research at best. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There were no per country immigration quotas in the United States, at least for European countries, until the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, and therefore the immigration the USA got until then was a pretty representative sample of demand. Nearly anybody could immigrate if they wanted to. And after 1921, immigration from European countries was very low, except for brief periods after World War II and in the 1990s. BGManofID (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Language barrier as wrong interpretation of phrases in a known language[edit]

The phrase "Yes, boss!" does not mean for Romanian employees what it means for Germans or Americans, and an answer like "This is interesting. I will think about it" from a British boss can be interpreted as encouraging to the Romanian employee but in fact the message sent is rather a polite form of the sentence: "Stop wasting time with silly things, get to do some work!". Source: Business Magazin, 29 may 2013 Ark25  (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)