Academic Majors and Minors

Porthos · Academic Majors and Minors

I'm going to be a Business major (Finance). That is a given. But I also want to study Pyschology or Linguistics, or simply take the easy joy-ride way out, and opt for a minor in history!

I'm facing a bit of a dilemma however. The universities which I am planning on attending either offer an excellent business program, or an excellent linguistics/liberal arts program, but not both.

For instance, if I went to California Polytechnic University - San Luis Obispo, I would be at a good business school, and one of the best schools in the nation for architecture and engineering, but their liberal arts is not so hot, and their foreign language department is limited to about 5 languages. If I went to the University of California-Santa Barbara, the business school wouldn't be so great, but their liberal arts program is terrific.

I've considered minoring in foreign languages, thus learning two new languages on a fluent level, or minoring in a specific branch of linguistics, like comparative analysis between languages or language groups. Minoring in Romance language studies or Germanic languages has always sounded appealing. The best I could do in this direction at Cal Poly SLO is minor in foreign languages and learn two languages of my choice.

Minoring in foreign languages would probably be my best bet considering I'll be a business major. An MBA fluent in three languages is a killer combination in the business world, especially in the U.S.

But I wish to know how much extra effort is required to take on a minor? Does the workload become intense?

Benjamin [inactive] · Re: Academic Majors and Minors

Elaine · Re: Academic Majors and Minors

Shouga

It would be very hard to become fluent in two new languages in just 3-4 years, especially if it was just a minor...

Porthos

Patrix

I'm from China, so needless to say, there must be lots of differences between the two countries' educational systems, but when it comes to certain subjects or courses--economics or finance, for example--they're about the same thing. If you're determined to learn finance (or economics), maths will be a critical factor. The development of modern mainstream economics is almost equivalent to the introduction of increasingly complicated maths tools. So if you want to learn finance, my suggestion is that you not let maths get in your way. If you find maths difficult, just leave more time to learn it. By learning it harder now, you save a lot of time in college and can take more majors and minors, learn more languages and come visit langcafe on a more regular basis!

Benjamin [inactive]

Porthos

Benjamin [inactive]

Uriel

Porthos, I don't think having a minor is all that much more work. It's even less if your minor ties into your major somehow, so that a lot of the required courses for each overlap -- I know engineering majors who only had to take three extra math classes to get a mathematics minor, since there's o much math required in engineering anyway.

If you get an emphasis in international business, for instance, you may find that some of your classes may count toward both.

I would definitely choose a college based on what they can offer toward your major, though, and not worry so much about how strong they are in your minor subject. You won't be taking that many classes in it anyway, and you are bound to find good and bad teachers in all schools, no matter how they are rated.

(And I agree with you about linguistic theory -- you don't have to buy it to learn it.)

Loic

Benjamin [inactive]

Uriel

Benjamin [inactive]

Uriel

Well, I tend to agree with a lot of what Porthos says about linguistics, and I myself would approach it from a different point of view (and with a little bit of a grain of sand regarding some of its basic assumptions). I don't think a healthy dose of skepticism is at all a bad thing. Especially in a scientific field -- you're supposed to always be skeptical, and demand proof -- or discard the notion.

Also, if you study the history of science, you will see that it has always been colored by the beliefs and attitudes of the people who practice it, however subtly, and often without any awareness that they were doing it.

Paleoanthropology in the 60's was dominated by the idea of human evolution being driven by hunting -- why? Because in every human society, hunting -- and modern social derivatives like business -- is a showy and high-prestige activity, usually practiced by men. And anthropologists were mostly male. This assumption led to all kinds of erroneous theories that have subsequently been discarded, but it also led to subtle data-collecting errors. You may remember Jane Goodall, the British primatologist. She was one of the first to actually study female primate behavior and its impact on group structure. Prior to her, most anthropologists ignored female behavior, since males were the showier, more dominant, and more demonstrative members of the group (and because they themselves were usually male) -- they thought females were noncompetitive, only served to reproduce, and had no influence on power structures or social strategy.

Physics was famously set back by none other than Einstein himself, who doctored his own equations when they didn't fit the facts then available at the time, because he would not believe where they were pointing, and absolutely hated the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- because he felt that "God does not play dice with the universe."

Some of the more PC aspects of current linguistic theory can easily be interpreted as a natural offshoot of other modern PC trends -- as well as a backlash against the hierarchical prejudices of past researchers in the field.

So an open mind has to weigh all the variables.

Fredrik

Very interesting and very true. But although Porthos' ideas are both refreshing and food for thought, I don't see them as very challenging to linguistical theory, as they easily can be accomodated.

On the Stereotypes of various nationalities thread he wrote:

Deborah

Benjamin [inactive]

I actually do agree with what Uriel has said here. However, I still believe that Porthos' current views are inappropriate for linguistic study, and, as Fredrik said, do not pose any threat to linguistics in general. It's perhaps comparable to how 'Young Earth Creationists' (people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, such that the universe was created in six/seven 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago) do not actually pose any threat to evolutionary biology, even though some of them seem to think that they do.

Walker

Uriel

Yeah, I don't think you can separate the social aspects of dialect from the structural ones. I think where linguistics got a little caught up in itself was in trying to apply "hard" science data -- examining rules and structure to see if they were in fact comparable across all dialect no matter how prestigious or not -- and then applying it to what is really a "soft" science issue: the reality of social structure and the role that patterns of speech play in it. Yes, the data confirms that all dialects are equally complex and consistent in structure. But that was never the real issue in the first place -- that was just a search for objective justification to a subjective issue -- apples to oranges, in my view.

But as I've said before, I think science is uncomfortable with subjectivity in general. It's difficult to quantify or reproduce under controlled situations. And because the scientific models started out in hard sciences like mathematics and astronomy and physics, where subjectivity often plays a limited role anyway, softer sciences have inherited that bias. But I think it limits their ability to deal with the full picture.

I remember learning that it was always a serious no-no for biologists to attribute any kind of emotion or thought process to animal studies, because that was an unknowable variable; the most they would allow a researcher to say was that the animal acted as if it were frightened or sad or happy. Part of this was very much a bias against animals even being capable of emotional lives -- and a fear of the researcher anthropomorphizing or projecting their own interpretations onto the animal. Now this is changing, as animal psychology is becoming more studied and emotions are known to be a primitive, not advanced, response.

Fredrik

I totally agree with you Walker and Uriel. The notion that no dialects are superior is purely linguistical and scientific. For the social hierarchy there are separate terms, like acrolect, mesolect and basilect.

To argue that people should not learn standard English, but speak and write their various varieties would not be science, but politics. That being said, the scientific evidence that no variety is inherently inferior can be a tool for political and cultural empowerment, like in 19th century Norway, where that fine scholar Ivar Aasen travelled around the country, listened to how the peasants spoke and scientifically proved that their various dialects were not corrupted, improper Danish, as was widely belived, but direct descendants of Old Norse. On that basis, he made a new literary language, Nynorsk, which made reading and writing much easier for peasants and gave them cultural pride and political zest.

Benjamin [inactive]

What Walker and Uriel are describing is called sociolinguistics — the study of the effects which society has on how language is used. This constitutes an integral part of linguistic studies, and would include study of how and why certain varieties become stigmatised.

However, although I recognise that much language prejudice and speech snobbery does exist in real life (and believe me, it works both ways in this country), I believe that it is important that linguists try not to have such prejudices themselves. Thus, in my view, I do not believe that the presumption that certain native dialects are inherently 'lazy' or 'improper' in themselves would be compatible with genuine linguistic studies.

I can, however, understand why Porthos has reached the conclusion that certain native dialects are simply 'lazy', even though it is a view that I could not possibly agree with. In contrast to at least Fredrik, Deborah and myself, he has made a conscious effort to modify his speech in order that it conforms more closely to what he perceives as 'standard'. Thus, he may view people who appear not to have made this effort as 'lazy'.

But as I mentioned above, language prejudice can work both ways. I speak RP, which is the traditional acrolect (i.e. 'higher social class' speech) in the British Isles, especially in England. I have generally found this to be a disadvantage throughout my life. In fact, many people have advised me to try to adopt the regional dialect of Birmingham — I haven't, though.

Walker

Fredrik

Perhaps he can't. RP is his native tongue.

Walker

greg in noord-frankrijk

Liz

On the whole, I agree with Benjamin on the linguistic issue.

We (who are majoring in linguistics) learn at uni that all varieties of a language are equally valid and acceptable, social prestige or stigma aside. I see it that way, too, but I can understand that others, who aren't trained in linguistics, don't agree. I myself sometimes have doubts about the whole issue as I'm studying both linguistics and ESL / DaF. I feel like I'm suffering from a split personality disease because the opinions and interests of professional linguists and that of EFL/ESL teachers don't only differ but even collide.

As an esencially descriptivist myself, I advocate the more tolerant viewpoint of a linguist in all walks of life. However, it's sometimes difficult if not almost insensible. I usually avoid getting involved in any language-related discussion with lay people as I often get quizzical looks when I try to explain them that a non-standard dialect is not something inherently "bad" or "sloppy".

The same thing applies to the majority of language teachers. I daresay they display basically the same attitude towards non-standard dialects in the three countries I have spent my life (Hungary, UK, Germany). However, the situation is not the same in these three countries.

Hungary, as opposed to the UK and Germany, doesn't have a wide range of accents and dialects. To be more precise, we do have them but in a different way. First, there isn't so much difference between them. Second, people of the younger generation, even middle-aged people don't really speak with a thick accent. Speakers with a very noticeable regional accent are members of the older generation. So, we all speak *fairly* standard Hungarian, with occassional subtle differences. That may result in a really prevalent intolerance towards regional dialects. Most youngsters or even middle-aged people burst out in laughter when they hear someone speaking in a dialect. Sadly enough, teachers often do the same. (Fortunately, there is always exception.)

In the UK and in Germany you have an abundance of regional and social accents and dialects. Some of them are prestigeous, others are stigmatised. In Germany, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a firmly established belief/concept of the so-called standard. But most people can pick the ones they find "good" and "beautiful" and those that they find "unpleasant", "ugly" or even "undesirable". In the UK there are strange things going on...inverted snobbery for instance. The problem that was mentioned by Benjamin. Most people find RP "stilted", "snobbish" or "excrutiating" and some describe it as a "social handicap" (which is too harsh a word to use in this context). As a result of this, many people try to make their accents less posh, speak in a relaxed way as much as they can, and some even speak one class lower than they should be.

So, I've strayed away a bit, but back to language teachers. What I wanted to say is that most of them find non-standard varieties plain lazy, sloppy or uneducated. I don't agree with this in general but they have a point in terms of foreign language teaching. I also think that foreign learners should learn the "standard" patterns first. Most people learn a foreign language for practical purposes such as in hope of getting a good job. Job interviewers, as we all know, are usually not conversant with linguistic, therefore they immediately label a person using a non-satndard accent/ grammatical constructions as "uneducated" and thus incapable for the job.

At the same time it's essential that they should be somewhat familiar with non-standard accents and dialects as well. Even Standard English isn't spoken in its pure unadultered form in real life as it is on audio materials, in textbooks and under laboratory conditions.

Sorry for my long and tedious post, anyway. I had no intention of boring you to death.

Deborah

I'm a descriptivist (though I didn't know it until I learned the term after visiting language forums

) but I have no objection to teachers teaching the standard form of a language. What I object to is teachers telling their students that the standard form is the correct form of the language and that dialects are simply bad versions of the language.

I took a course to get a certificate in teaching English as a second language (which I might utilize someday). The attitude of my teachers was that you should always let your students know the difference between standard, nonstandard (i.e., nonstandard forms that native speakers use) and incorrect (i.e., mistakes that native speakers wouldn't make) English. The students should also be made aware that since nonstandard dialects are often stigmatized, they should know when it isn't advisable to use nonstandard English.

Liz

Loic

Contrary to what my detractors understand, I am not opposed to dialects but I think that their place is and should be consigned to the boundaries of the family abode. It has no place in the official domain.

I still believe that certain dialects are inherently superior. How do we determine this pecking order? We'll look at the amount of literary output that was created in that particular tongue. We'll analyse the precision of its grammar and syntax. We'll examine the natural lilt of the spoken tongue to see if it's melodious and pleasing to the ear. I don't mind saying this, but some languages sound unpleasant to the ear. It is politically correct nonsense when one solemnly declares that all languages are 'equally beautiful'; it's like saying that a musical masterpiece is as lovely as a trashy arrangement of a song that nobody listens to.

Linguists, in my understanding, examine different languages in isolation. They fail -or choose not to- understand the psychology of the speakers. They are blind to the social ramifications of speaking a certain language. To me, to speak a particular language is also to make a strong cultural as well as political statement. For example, I have refused to speak in Mandarin at times to monolinggual Mandarin speakers, choosing instead to give my replies in a Chinese dialect. This is my way of rebelling against the perceived superiority complex which Mandarin speakers tend to have at times. I have deliberately embarked upon this course of action despite being much better in Mandarin as far as my vocabulary is concerned.

So I really don't understand the academic debates which rage in the linguistic world. Yes, dialects must be preserved for they enrich our otherwise mundane lives. Just as an organism, no matter how small it is, has a role to play in the eco-system, each tongue no matter how lowly it is perceived socially, is a fount of wisdom and a source of knowledge for future generations. It is a badge of cultural identity for its speakers and it would be a shame if the centrifugal forces of the standard dialect prevails over its unorthodox forms.

But it is also erroneous to promote the theory that there is no such thing as a wrong grammatical structure. This is dangerous thinking. As it is, many people in the developed world are already functionally illiterate. From a government policymaker's point of view, you would not want to exarcebate this social problem by pontificating about the merits of unorthodox grammatical structure in the name of linguistic sovereignty.

Deborah

Deborah

Deborah

Benjamin [inactive]

Julian

Liz

Benjamin [inactive]

Liz

Porthos

Liz

Liz

<>

It means in my Pidgin English: I don't really know what I wanted to say with that.

Porthos

Yep, you got the standard translation down perfectly. But "iz" in "snizob" is actually the way some black people alter words in order to be "creative". This feature is a very recent adaptation, inspired by the rapper by the name of "Snoop Dog", who changed words in such a way in one of his songs. So, many blacks now speak like that.

Benjamin would say that this is merely an expression of their "dialect", and that nothing at all is improper about it.

Deborah

Liz

Benjamin [inactive]

Loic

I know that I went out on a limb there. I expected a barrage of replies that were contradictory to my personal set of beliefs. I continue to stand by my own convictions. However, I have a presentiment that I am playing a totally different ball game here and it is patently obvious that linguistics is and has never been my field of expertise.

All of you made valid responses. I do not denigrate the viability of dialects, God forbid. I'd be one of the first to mourn their loss if they ever go the way of the infamous Dodo.

However, I do not think like a linguist here. My treatment towards the issue is akin to that of a government policymaker with his eyes on social cohesion as well as national identity. To me, language and politics are natural bedfellows. When we speak a language, we assert a communal identity. Languages can be used to include as well as to exclude individuals. To me, language is a tool to further cultural ends.

This is why I am casting aspersions on the viability of literature being produced in any dialect. It is simply not a viable business model for any respectable publishing house worth its weight in salt to commit itself to printing works in a non-standard dialect. Did Shakespeare write overwhelmingly in dialect (assuming his native dialect differed substantially from the standard) or did he have his finger on the pulse of the literary public and write in a language that was best able to communicate his ideas?

Would Karl Marx's Das Kapital have been a bestseller of his times if it was written in his own dialect instead of standard High German?

As for Benjamin's outrageous proposition that people of dialect-speaking backgrounds should be given carte blanche to write in a way that conforms to their native speech patterns, I can only wring my hands in dispair. The corollary of his argument would be that all native English dialect speakers have the right to write phonetically irrespective of geographical boundaries. Or does this privilege to write phonetically only extend to people of the British Isles?

So the Chinese exchange student in Sixteen Candles was speaking a legitimate form of English when he yelped, 'Wassa happening hot stuff? No more yankie, my wankie!'

Whatever that means, linguists locked up in their ivory towers would probably clamour to confer a degree of legitimacy on such forms of speech and urge society to accept that people who speak like that have a grasp of English which is anyway as good as Shakespeare's - it is just different, that's all.

Loic

Liz

Liz

I'm woefully ignoring American literature...What a shame!

So: Mark Twain, Alice Walker, Zora Neale Hurston...there are much more books worth mentioning but my head is empty at the moment. It isn't empty in fact but it's rather full of other things as I'm completely snowed under.

I haven't mentioned literary works written in other languages, either, but it would be ever so time-consuming...

Loic

Shakespeare was a revolutionary and he, to put it crudely, genuinely knows his stuff. When he wrote about the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or the milk of human kindness, he stringed words together to form a euphony.

'Wassa happening hot stuff? No more yankie, my wankie' is just cacophony.

I am sure there are books written in a dialect instead of in the standard English. In fact, many poems of Robert Burns were not written in the Queen's English. However, it is also not accurate to say that Burns wrote in a dialect as he was merely adhering to the conventions of standard Scottish English of his time.

As for Mark Twain, as far as Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are concerned, he wrote in standard English while resorting to the vernacular to fill in his dialogues. This, I approve of heartily and have no criticism of weaving dialect into speeches in order to confer an air of legitimacy on the storyline.

Academic Majors and Minors

Re: Academic Majors and Minors

Re: Academic Majors and Minors