A few days after I wrote this, Carnegie Mellon reserachers went to the press with a very complex translation instrument they call "the bablefish device"... since I had not read HHGTG, I was not aware that this trem was in common use... it is... so there you have it.

Today, I had some trouble with the buses here in Korea... mostly because I can't read, but also because there often aren't enough of them. These are the most archaically industrial things you can imagine... really loud, smelly, and bumpy. Only the older passengers get to sit down, so you really have to try to stay on your feet the whole time. Then I got some bad directions and ended up somewhere I really didn't recognize. Luckily, when I got off the bus cursing profusely, a Korean high schooler named Kim Segi handed me a post it note that said “Cute boy!” on it. I was very impressed with her forwardness and English skills, so I let her show me the way to the waterfront. She tagged along for the next two hours as I searched for dark chocolate and the restaurant at which I was to meet my friends for raw fish dinner later. She had a lot of energy and was always trying to speak to me in Korean, even though she must have known I didn't understand a thing. She is actually sitting here next to me as I type this. We have virtually no idea what each other are saying, but she seems to be very taken with me and my antics. I can show her videos and photos and we can do a little Korean lesson together with the Rosetta Stone software, but other than that, we cannot communicate.

This is a real shame because I would like to know what makes her tick. Then again, if we could, maybe she would have found out by now that I am way too old and weird for her. Maybe there is also something to be said for the value of nonverbal communication. Are there potential benefits to suspending language as our primary means of communications at least temporarily in some cases? Do we learn something extra from such experiences? Language is all about conveying symbols and ideas, right? Haven't we gotten to a point where we can effectively communicate with symbols? People wax on and on about the simulated society and how media oriented we have become. If I had Internet access, could I effectively use the Google translator and a whole bunch of digital media to communicate with her in lieu of language? Anyway, this is just a case in point from which to launch into the larger discussion below.

Linguistic barriers are my biggest problem when I travel. Thank god most countries use Arabic numerals and include English versions of the most important signs. To locals, I must seem to be a mute, illiterate, idiot. So I started to think about what it would be like if I actually pretended I was mute in other countries? I know that I should try harder to learn the native languages of the places I visit, but it is truly difficult. I thought Japanese was hard, but I was able to develop a pretty significant vocabulary with only about twelve total hours of study time. Then I lost my phrasebook... so I really had to put to use whatever I had. When I tried to do the same thing with Korean, I failed miserably. They have many more vowels, making pronunciation much more difficult. The words are also significantly longer and utilize strange consonant combinations. I thought the loss of the phrasebook option really hampered my communications while I was in Japan, but now that I have my phrasebook in Korea, I realize how generally useless these things are. To be able to find what you want to say in the book takes significant time, and then being able to pronounce the phrase correctly is never a given. Sure, I can learn all the mandatory phrases in an hour or so if I drill myself and put them into use. But this is barely communication. I can often get the same results with charades, a map, and a piece of paper and pen.

Here is what I propose: forget phrase books, let's get high tech! I've seen the electronic dictionaries most Asian students have and I must say I am impressed. They are fast, encyclopedic, and well designed to switch between input and output languages. However, they don't have the kind of communications functionality that would allow for a stand alone conversation, just enough to fix slightly broken speech. The newest generation of voice recognition software claims to be mostly effective with no training. While I have neither first or second hand information on the truth of this, it gets me excited anyhow. If it is true, combining it with rapidly improving language translation software would solve the basic linguistic problem of our time. A universal translator is another Star Trek idea whose time has come. I speak into the device, it recognizes English and spits out text, which is then translated into the language of the person I want to speak to... heck maybe it even it pronounces it correctly for me. Then either the other party would do the same with their own device or we would share a device that could quickly switch between settings for a two way conversation. Even if the voice recognition technology hasn't yet gotten to the point where it can facilitate this kind of exchange, the cell phone/PDA technology here has. The speed at which people can write each other fairly complex text messages is astounding. Although many people rely on both their familiarity with the keypad translations and the word prediction functions, a new generation of devices utilize small keypads that greatly improves the input process. Again, with the translation software added, a basic textual chat-style relationship easily develops in the real world. Again, two people could share one device if the input keys could easily be switched from one language to another. This would be easy using modifiable (organic?) LED configurations on the keypads.

Now I will launch into a devils advocate style discussion in order to balance and strengthen my position. Some would argue that this would be the lazy way out of learning languages, a process which is both educationally and culturally valuable. Others would say that there is something so special about verbal communications that it should not be replaced by textual communication. To some degree, I respect the spirit of you Luddites out there, but I cannot reconcile it with the overall backwardness that this position entails. I understand there is something less than idyllic in a situation where I would walk up to some old Korean woman selling vegetables on the street and begin trying to haggle and discourse with her through one of these devices. Not only would she likely have difficulty using it, but the entire situation seems disrespectful and overly mechanical. I cannot say exactly why I anticipate this feeling. Is it oh so cute to watch me gesture, mispronounce, and wildly butcher syntax in order to buy a piece of overpriced fruit? I would favor a more impersonal, but generally fairer and comprehensible interaction any day. However, replace that old woman with a young man listening to music on the subway, and the general feel of the scenario changes immensely. Would the universal translator help you avoid cultural gaffes? Could you communicate in groups? Probably not, but it is at least a step in the right direction and could always be used as a tool to help one actually learn the language.

My core argument is as follows: There is little in the world more important than people being able to communicate with one another. This is a basic issue of progress for humankind that has ramifications both in micro (street vending) and macro (cross national labor organizing) interactions. We have tried to bridge it before by establishing a a common language... in my opinion, sign language was a better idea than Esperanto, but neither have managed to achieve critical mass. The idea that English is the world's new common language is both untrue and problematic in a variety of ways. Only about a fifth of the world's population speaks a language common to people outside their national borders. Even then, most do not communicate on similarly high levels that would allow for in depth communication. This is unacceptable for a variety of obvious social and economic reasons. We should be able to understand each other reasonably well by now!

There are people make who a very big deal about knowing multiple languages, sometimes for good reason, sometimes not. Normally, they are the people who have invested lots of time into learning them and now tend to guilt people who have not. The social distribution of linguistic skill is important to examine here. Trilingualism is most common in Europe's richest small nations. They have both great training and the necessity brought on by doing business in their continent's many different linguistic enclaves. The Americas are really unique in their level of linguistic homogeneity. The largest chunk of bilingual people are found among the world's poorer populations. They are disproportionately subject to emigration to gain economic stability or mobility and thus must learn the language of the host populations they end up working for and sometimes even living among. Also, many underdeveloped lands were only recently decolonized and the the language of the colonizers remains important for both economic and cultural (class) reasons. However, most of the world still speaks only their native tongue competently.

Some would suggest that they just need better language education. While I understand the merits of learning a language for the sake of understanding basic human linguistic patterns, the use value of second language learning is often marginal at best. Most people in Asia have had a full ten years of English instruction in school, yet cannot speak a word of it. They can sound out words fine and they know some grammar, but they really can't understand English websites. They can barely understand the stupid English catch phrases every advertisement in Asia seems to employ. These are not stupid people. There are definite problems with their linguistic pedagogy, but it is generally just a colossal task that has insufficient use value to motivate them to take the extra steps to learn it. Immerse these kids in America for one year and they will probably speak the language pretty well. Is that what it will take? Ten million Asian kids learning in America each year? Perhaps, but that is a stunning logistical problem.

We need to recognize that English speakers get a lot of advantages these days. Those who grow up native speakers have the most, yet work the least for them. I have been disgusted by the native speaking teachers I meet who have lived in foreign countries for years and have only a rudimentary grasp of the local language. I find it to be extremely arrogant, insulting to the natives, and just crazy that they never bothered to learn the language of the people that pay them. It is an outcome of a privileged enclave system that is generally not possible for immigrants who want to get ahead in rich nations. The burden of foreign language acquisition falls on the world's poorer people. In turn, they are able to spend less time working on learning more lucrative skills for job market success. Native English speakers then come to their countries to profit from the perceived (probably overestimated) need for their special “talent”, thereby displacing and devaluing locals who have devoted huge amounts of effort to develop oh-so-close-but-not-good-enough English fluency. Some French technology students told me that while they were traveling in Seoul recently, a woman approached them and offered to pay for thir presence at a playground nearby. The problem was that there were no native English speakers to interact with a group of young Korean elites. However, their Korean teachers spoke better English than these Frenchmen, but it wasn't language skill they were after, it was whiteness. I really have to liken it to an imperialist mentality, both culturally and economically. It is lose-lose, ineffective, and regressive system. I would like to help dismantle it, but how to do so will be another piece to come later.