- There's no penalty for trying. (This is more off-the-road, but I think it's an important place to start.) "Building your base" is the first step to training for a long-distance race. It's kind of like pre-training - you want to get your body comfortable with more mileage, both at one time and on a weekly basis, before you start the core of your training, where your mileage shoots up at a rate that an unprepared body wouldn't handle well. I started building mine in March 2008, when running October's Marine Corps Marathon was still just something I thought I might want to do. I set up a training plan all the way through to race day, but started out with the idea that I'd just see how it went, and if I hit a point where I didn't feel my body could handle any more, that would be okay - at least I'd have tried!
- Fuel up. We've already talked about hydration, but if you're going to be out for longer periods on a regular basis, you'll need energy, i.e. something edible, in addition to water. There are tons of products made for this - energy gel shots are the most popular but they gross me out, so I use Jelly Belly Sport Beans. Always err on the side of taking too much with you until you're sure of your body's needs. Personally, I need to eat about half a pack of Sport Beans (~50 calories) every five to seven miles on any run 10 miles or longer. If I don't, the effects of my blood sugar hitting rock-bottom are unpleasant, as I learned last summer when I had run out of Sport Beans prior to my first 14-miler and thought a 90-calorie Special K bar would be sufficient. I could barely stand up when I got back, spent my shower shaking uncontrollably and sitting down every two minutes, and had to sip at watered-down apple juice for half an hour until I felt like I could successfully get some much-needed food into my system. Ever since then, I keep a supply of Sport Beans handy. (If you find yourself in a pinch, I have a friend who swears by chocolate chips as training fuel. I think it's gross, especially when they melt, but whatever works!)
- Cheer yourself on! Long workouts can be as exhausting mentally as they are physically, and I can't begin to tell you the number of goofy things I've done to keep myself going on long runs. Last year, when I was running further than I ever had before just about every other week, being able to make myself laugh - usually at myself - or smile was key. After watching the women's marathon at the Beijing Olympics, I got into the habit of narrating my long runs in my head - pretending it was a professional race, and I was the sportscaster. Ridiculous, but it kept me going. Mostly because thinking of what to fill in and making up facts about my running "career" and my fake opponents kept me distracted, so that I didn't focus on the distance left to go. I don't generally need to resort to that sort of thing anymore, but keeping your brain busy during those first really long workouts can be the key to your success in completing them.
- Pay attention to the weather. (This was a toss-up between on and off the road, but since it affects you most when you're on, it wound up here.) We work pretty hard to keep the weather from affecting us when we're indoors, but there's no climate control when your workout is outside. I regularly use weather.com's "Hour-by-Hour" feature to figure out when is going to be the best time of day for a run based on projected temperature, windspeed and chance of precipitation. You'll find your own comfort zone for outdoor workouts - I'm most comfortable in the 45-70 degrees Farenheit range. Stepping out of that zone isn't bad, but don't subject yourself to extreme temperatures if you can avoid it. In the fall and winter, I envy people who can run on their lunch hours in bright daylight and warmer temperatures, but in the summer I find myself suppressing the urge to dump a bottle of water over their heads and another down their throats. Sure, heat makes you sweat more and that's what some people want. But going out at noon when the sun is at its most intense and the temperature is starting to soar is not a particularly smart choice. Around noon, you're more likely to be sunburnt, you're more susceptible to heatstroke and dehydration, and you'll deplete more of your body's nutritional stores, particularly your electrolytes (basically, salt - potassium and sodium being the most common in the human body). Try to be flexible with your schedule, and don't put your overall health at risk for one workout.
- Know where you are. MapMyRun.com is a (free!) lifesaver of a website that lets you plot out every step of your route on what's essentially a GoogleMap you can draw on. (MapMyRide - for cyclists - and MapMyFitness - for any type of workout - are basically the same thing, although you can track any type of workout in each of the versions.) Since distance matters when you're training for an event of a specific length, I map my routes before I run them whenever possible. This also means that if I want to know where certain miles (or every mile) hit on my route, all I have to do is check my map before I go. Then when I'm on the road, it's easy to track pace and distance, and - most importantly - to know when and where to turn/turn around. Getting lost or not being sure where you are when your feet are your only means of transportation and you're relatively far from home is not a fun experience, so it's always a good idea to have a firm grasp of your route before you take off. I also find that if I'm not sure of where at least a handful of miles hit, I get poky. When all my watch is telling me is how long I've been out, not what my pace is, I lose the competitive edge that keeps my speed up. (Although really, when you're training for a long-distance race, getting the mileage in is far more important than how quickly you do it.)
- Experiment! This applies to any number of things, from what you eat before and after runs to how you pace yourself, but the first thing to experiment with is whether you feel most comfortable running with a group, a partner or solo. Most metro areas have running groups, and the best places to start looking for one are probably Meetup.com and your local outdoor equipment store. Groups are great motivators, and if you can't stand the thought of spending a couple of hours alone on a trail, it's definitely something to try. When training for a specific event, charity groups are extremely supportive (Team In Training for The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society is one of the widest-spread), but be aware that you'll be required to fundraise a significant amount of money. If groups strike you as intimidating, finding a running buddy or two can give you some company and motivation on your workouts without making you feel overwhelmed. Whether or not you think you'll enjoy it, try running alone at some point, just to see how it goes - you may be surprised. I started out training solo because the idea of people seeing me sweat and pant my way through a run was mortifying, but I assumed I'd team up with a group once I got into the longer, more demanding portion of my training. I quickly stopped caring who saw me pounding around D.C. red-faced and sweaty, but I never did team up with a group - I found that I really enjoy running alone, using the time to think or just to relax (mentally, anyway). I occasionally run with either my mom or one of a couple of friends and I enjoy the company and the chance to do two things I love at once (talking too much being the second), but I'm primarily a solo runner.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Take your workout outside: Part III
I had intended for Part III to be the last of the "Take your workout outside" mini-series, but since it's devoted to tips for people who want to try their hand (well, feet) at long-distance workouts, which tend to affect all aspects of your life, it would be an extremely long post! So I've divided it into "on the road" and "off the road" tips - let's start with on. (N.B.: Running is the only activity I do at the long-distance level, so these tips are specific to runners, although I imagine a lot of the same things apply for cycling, swimming, etc.)
Friday, April 24, 2009
"American" values?
A little work/life cross-pollination here, but this has been bugging me for the last few days: Burns Strider, the Clinton campaign's faith outreach director last year, has founded a new 501(c)(4) non-profit called American Values Network. American? Great, me too. Values? Good stuff. Faith? Awesome. But faith (read: organized religion) in politics? Not so much.
When I first heard about this new organization, I read Burns Strider's name, then the name of the organization and blinked. Burns Strider is a Democrat. American Values Network sounds like one of the religious right organizations created in the 80s and 90s, who gave themselves benign, all-American-sounding names - American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition - to mask their evangelical fundamentalism, and general bigotry and intolerance. Hmm.
American Values Network's heart is in the right place, so to speak. They want to focus on critical issues like poverty, AIDS and the environment, which, bleeding-heart that I am, I'm all for. It's how they want to go about it that drives me nuts. They look at these issues as "compassion issues of the Bible," and want (Christian) politicians to talk about them in Christian terms, quoting scripture and using biblical texts to inform their work. But these aren't Christian, biblical or religious issues. They're social issues that are impacting the global community and need to be dealt with from a compassionate - but practical and modern - point of view.
Faith-based groups do great work around the world (Habitat for Humanity comes instantly to mind), and, like secular non-profits and NGOs, they often have more impact than government programs because they can avoid much of the bureaucracy and its red tape. Faith-based groups should continue to do that work, because - despite the fact that I strongly disagree with the proselytization they often inflict on the recipients of their charity - it's desperately needed. Faith-based groups should absolutely not suggest that any government representative or program embrace or fund the "faith" part of their work. It's not only exclusive and a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea, it's also unconstitutional.
What really gets me about American Values Network is that their main quarrel with the religious right - other than being on the opposite side of civil liberties issues - is that they don't use the Bible enough in their politics. If they're going to come at social issues from a moral, biblical standpoint, AVN says, they need to come at all political issues from a moral, biblical standpoint - that means the budget, health care, etc.
It was after reading that little gem that I really started wanting to bang my head against the wall.
The Democratic Party has been working for going on three decades to overpower the religious right. Up until this last election cycle, the general message from the Democrats was "let's leave faith out of politics, it messes with the separation of church and state, and bringing religion into the political arena just makes it even messier." That changed this time around, with the Democratic campaigns adding "faith outreach" staffers and the candidates working to present themselves as moral, religious people. (I'd argue that morality absolutely does not have to center on or stem from religion, but that's an issue for another day.)
Now this group wants Democrats to not only mimic the religious right's use of scripture and biblical finger-pointing in politics, but surpass it.
The critical point they're missing (aside from the whole being unconstitutional thing) is that not all Americans are Christian. Melting pot? Religious freedom? Diversity? Pluralistic society? Any of this ringing any bells? Oh right, they're all descriptions of America, land of the free. But part of American Values Network's raison d'être is this:
American Values Network has, it seems, fallen into the religious right's trap of believing that the U.S. of A. is and was founded as a Christian nation, when in fact the whole point of separating church and state in the First Amendment was to keep religion and government from becoming entangled and hurting one another, as they had done in Europe and in the colonies, pre-Declaration of Independence.
The face of America isn't an old white guy (unless we're talking about the Founders, in which case it's a group of pretty awesome old white guys, some of them Christian, some of them not). The face of America is a bunch of ages and genders and colors and ethnicities and creeds, all mixed up together. It's messy, it's complicated, it often involves screaming at the top of your lungs about what you believe is right - and it belongs to every single one of us who calls this country home.
I rail enough against the religious right already - I really don't want to have to start picking on a progressive organization for the same reasons. So please, Burns Strider et al., read up on your American history, read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights already, and quit dragging religion into politics, where they inevitably both wind up in the mud.
When I first heard about this new organization, I read Burns Strider's name, then the name of the organization and blinked. Burns Strider is a Democrat. American Values Network sounds like one of the religious right organizations created in the 80s and 90s, who gave themselves benign, all-American-sounding names - American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition - to mask their evangelical fundamentalism, and general bigotry and intolerance. Hmm.
American Values Network's heart is in the right place, so to speak. They want to focus on critical issues like poverty, AIDS and the environment, which, bleeding-heart that I am, I'm all for. It's how they want to go about it that drives me nuts. They look at these issues as "compassion issues of the Bible," and want (Christian) politicians to talk about them in Christian terms, quoting scripture and using biblical texts to inform their work. But these aren't Christian, biblical or religious issues. They're social issues that are impacting the global community and need to be dealt with from a compassionate - but practical and modern - point of view.
Faith-based groups do great work around the world (Habitat for Humanity comes instantly to mind), and, like secular non-profits and NGOs, they often have more impact than government programs because they can avoid much of the bureaucracy and its red tape. Faith-based groups should continue to do that work, because - despite the fact that I strongly disagree with the proselytization they often inflict on the recipients of their charity - it's desperately needed. Faith-based groups should absolutely not suggest that any government representative or program embrace or fund the "faith" part of their work. It's not only exclusive and a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea, it's also unconstitutional.
What really gets me about American Values Network is that their main quarrel with the religious right - other than being on the opposite side of civil liberties issues - is that they don't use the Bible enough in their politics. If they're going to come at social issues from a moral, biblical standpoint, AVN says, they need to come at all political issues from a moral, biblical standpoint - that means the budget, health care, etc.
It was after reading that little gem that I really started wanting to bang my head against the wall.
The Democratic Party has been working for going on three decades to overpower the religious right. Up until this last election cycle, the general message from the Democrats was "let's leave faith out of politics, it messes with the separation of church and state, and bringing religion into the political arena just makes it even messier." That changed this time around, with the Democratic campaigns adding "faith outreach" staffers and the candidates working to present themselves as moral, religious people. (I'd argue that morality absolutely does not have to center on or stem from religion, but that's an issue for another day.)
Now this group wants Democrats to not only mimic the religious right's use of scripture and biblical finger-pointing in politics, but surpass it.
The critical point they're missing (aside from the whole being unconstitutional thing) is that not all Americans are Christian. Melting pot? Religious freedom? Diversity? Pluralistic society? Any of this ringing any bells? Oh right, they're all descriptions of America, land of the free. But part of American Values Network's raison d'être is this:
We believe America needs leaders who understand public service is a calling, and who know they will be held accountable not only by voters, but by their Creator. We should not be afraid to proudly embrace the traditional and fundamental values that have guided and defined our country since its inception and helped make America a shining beacon of hope and freedom around the world.Um, that's nice (honestly, it is - public service is indeed a calling, and public servants do need to know that they'll be held accountable for their actions - and inaction). But whose "Creator" and "traditional and fundamental values?" Oh, your exclusively Christian ones, based on that Holy Bible you've got a huge picture of on your policy page? Not nice, guys. Not inclusive and not, in fact, American.
American Values Network has, it seems, fallen into the religious right's trap of believing that the U.S. of A. is and was founded as a Christian nation, when in fact the whole point of separating church and state in the First Amendment was to keep religion and government from becoming entangled and hurting one another, as they had done in Europe and in the colonies, pre-Declaration of Independence.
The face of America isn't an old white guy (unless we're talking about the Founders, in which case it's a group of pretty awesome old white guys, some of them Christian, some of them not). The face of America is a bunch of ages and genders and colors and ethnicities and creeds, all mixed up together. It's messy, it's complicated, it often involves screaming at the top of your lungs about what you believe is right - and it belongs to every single one of us who calls this country home.
I rail enough against the religious right already - I really don't want to have to start picking on a progressive organization for the same reasons. So please, Burns Strider et al., read up on your American history, read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights already, and quit dragging religion into politics, where they inevitably both wind up in the mud.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Take your workout outside: Part II
You may remember that in Part 1 of "Take your workout outside" I extolled the virtues of being aware of your surroundings and alerting people before passing them. Well, less than a week after writing that, a cyclist and I put on a spectacular demonstration of why those tips are so important.
A few days after that post, I was out for a six-mile run one morning before work - nothing out of the ordinary, except that traffic on the trail was a little lighter than usual, since it was pretty chilly. I hit my turnaround and - for some completely illogical reason - didn't look over my shoulder before starting to turn, as I usually do. I glanced over as I was turning instead, and saw a cyclist roughly two feet behind me, coming fast. It was one of those moments when everything seems to freeze, and you think "Oh, this really can not be happening."
Unfortunately, it really was. Bikes move faster than you might think, and two feet doesn't give you much more than a second of reaction time, during which I tried to scramble out of the way but happened to choose the same direction in which the cyclist tried to veer to avoid me. My attempt to jump back the other way might have been successful with half a second more, but by that point, the collision was inevitable. In a few more seconds of slow-mo fun, I felt the bike hit me, mostly on my left side, finished getting out of the way, watched the cyclist wobble, tried to grab for him as he fell and missed. He ended up on his back under his bike (which, fortunately, had a light frame), and when I went to help him up, I saw that his head must have hit the trail as well, since his helmet had split. Yikes.
Once we got his bike and the pieces of his helmet off the trail, there was a spate of, "Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry, are you okay?", "I'm so sorry, I should have looked sooner, I don't know what I was thinking," "No no, I should have let you know I was passing," "I'm so sorry, I feel terrible. Really, are you all right?"
Neither of us was injured to the point of not being able to keep going, but I think we each walked away feeling like it was our fault - I know I did. One moment of carelessness, and forgetting to do something I've done hundreds of times before, and I was stiff and sore for days and left with a couple of bruises that still haven't completely faded. I've been keeping an eye out for the cyclist, hoping to see him again and reassure myself that he's okay, but no luck so far. Here's hoping we've just been out at different times lately.
On that note, here are a few more tips for outdoor workouts - and hopefully you take my advice better than I do!
A few days after that post, I was out for a six-mile run one morning before work - nothing out of the ordinary, except that traffic on the trail was a little lighter than usual, since it was pretty chilly. I hit my turnaround and - for some completely illogical reason - didn't look over my shoulder before starting to turn, as I usually do. I glanced over as I was turning instead, and saw a cyclist roughly two feet behind me, coming fast. It was one of those moments when everything seems to freeze, and you think "Oh, this really can not be happening."
Unfortunately, it really was. Bikes move faster than you might think, and two feet doesn't give you much more than a second of reaction time, during which I tried to scramble out of the way but happened to choose the same direction in which the cyclist tried to veer to avoid me. My attempt to jump back the other way might have been successful with half a second more, but by that point, the collision was inevitable. In a few more seconds of slow-mo fun, I felt the bike hit me, mostly on my left side, finished getting out of the way, watched the cyclist wobble, tried to grab for him as he fell and missed. He ended up on his back under his bike (which, fortunately, had a light frame), and when I went to help him up, I saw that his head must have hit the trail as well, since his helmet had split. Yikes.
Once we got his bike and the pieces of his helmet off the trail, there was a spate of, "Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry, are you okay?", "I'm so sorry, I should have looked sooner, I don't know what I was thinking," "No no, I should have let you know I was passing," "I'm so sorry, I feel terrible. Really, are you all right?"
Neither of us was injured to the point of not being able to keep going, but I think we each walked away feeling like it was our fault - I know I did. One moment of carelessness, and forgetting to do something I've done hundreds of times before, and I was stiff and sore for days and left with a couple of bruises that still haven't completely faded. I've been keeping an eye out for the cyclist, hoping to see him again and reassure myself that he's okay, but no luck so far. Here's hoping we've just been out at different times lately.
On that note, here are a few more tips for outdoor workouts - and hopefully you take my advice better than I do!
- Watch your feet. Or the road, I guess, if you're cycling. Either way, the point is that you're no longer on a stationary machine, you're out on a road or trail that gets beat up by feet, tires, wheels and tree roots, and it's not going to be obstacle-free. I know the route between my apartment and the trail I run on so well that I can (and sometimes do) run it in the dark, but whenever I'm on a new route, I keep the road in my peripheral vision, so I don't end up flat on my face. Even if you do know the route, pay attention when it's wet or particularly cold - trails can have slick spots, and tend to freeze more quickly than streets, since they don't get the heat from car engines. And bridges freeze the most quickly of all, so keep an eye out for ice!
- Take it easy. Any workout that's longer or more demanding than you're used to - whether because of distance, hills or significant changes in temperature - is going to take more out of you. By giving yourself a little bit of a break and reducing your speed, even just a fraction, you'll avoid burning out and won't have to deal with that dragging, I'm-exhausted-why-did-I-come-this-far-and-how-much-longer-till-I-get-home sensation. Longer distances are tiring at any speed, of course, but if you take it easy the first time you go out for a more demanding workout than you're used to, you'll have a better idea of how your body handles it for the next time. If it was really tough to finish, despite slowing down some, try something halfway between your usual workout and the new, challenging one a few times - when you tackle the challenging workout again, you may find it's gotten easier. If you finished with energy to spare, great! - next time, you'll know you can pick up the pace without worrying about burning out.
- Smile! Amateur athletes, especially runners (although I may be biased!), are a friendly bunch - it must be all those feel-good endorphins running around in their bloodstreams. So if you make eye contact with a fellow trail-user, smile, or say hi. And there's the habitual "runner wave" - just a lift of the hand and/or a nod of the head meant to acknowledge the other people panting and sweating out there with you.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Why not bilingualism?
This is a bit beyond the current scope of There Is No Spoon, but I'm so excited about it, we're going to pretend that's not an issue: Blogging on Bilingualism is a fantastic resource, and one of my new favorite blogs. A resource for who? Strictly speaking, for anyone raising, trying to raise or thinking about raising a bilingual child...but really, it's an excellent resource for anyone interested in bilingualism - and multilingualism - on any level, at any age.
I would love to raise my future children bilingual, because the array of extra doors a second (or third, or fourth, or...) language can open is both fascinating and useful. But the idea is a little daunting, since although I have some friends who were essentially raised bilingual - and in some cases trilingual - it was more accidental or environmental than intentional, at least as far as I know. Blogging on Bilingualism offers a forum for discussion and the sharing of an infinite variety of practical information for parents of children growing up bilingual - and an additional source of fascination and information for language geeks like me.
In some of the ways the blog's author, Eve Bodeux, describes how she teaches her children or watches them learn, and some of the comments from other readers about their children, I recognize some of the same tricks I used when I was living in France, although I was 20 at the time. I wanted to read more than newspapers in French without having to reach for a dictionary every five seconds, so I picked up the French translation of Harry Potter. I knew the basic idea of the story since I'd seen the films, so I could follow along even if I wasn't catching every word, and knowing the general context helped me learn new vocabulary. (Of course, when I read the seventh book in English, because I couldn't wait until the French translation was released, I was completely confused. What in the world is Disapparating? It's en transplanant that you get from one place to another, not by using this Disapparition nonsense!) Eve talks about having her children watch familiar films, like Disney's, dubbed in the target language - the second language you want them to learn - and it's the same idea: kids know the story and can follow along, but they're learning new vocabulary while they do.
One of the most interesting points made by Eve and some of her readers is that it doesn't really matter if one parent's use of the target language is less than perfect. As long as children hear a variety of native speakers - whether on TV, in films, or in real life - the slight mispronunciations and small grammatical errors a non-native speaker might make won't affect them. It's hearing the target language consistently, its vocabulary, its syntax and some of the cultural background that go with them, that matters. And I think that applies to anyone learning a second language, no matter their age. There were some grammatical errors that made the rounds of my study abroad program, since we were all American students speaking French and tended to parrot each others' phrases - and inevitably, mistakes - but they gradually worked their way out of our collective system as we interacted more and more with native French-speaking professors, merchants and host families.
You probably know that the U.S. system for teaching foreign language is far from ideal. We introduce a foreign language in middle school or high school, while kids in most other countries are introduced to English or another foreign language at about the same time they start formal schooling. The science behind this is that your jaw solidifies when you're fairly young - I've heard anything from six to twelve on that one - and after it does, it's much more difficult to learn the correct pronunciation of languages that use different parts of the face and throat than your own. (French, for example, uses the mouth a lot more than English does - the sounds are fuller - and of course, there's the hacking, gagging 'r' sound. I tell my students to pretend they're gargling with water.)
We also just don't put the same kind of importance on learning a foreign language as other societies do, and I think it's our loss. Young people from other countries often come to study or work in the U.S. for a time and feel comfortable doing so, because they've studied English since elementary school. In comparison, very few Americans venture beyond our borders for any appreciable period of time, I think in large part because it's so completely outside our comfort zone. We're raised with the implicit (and sometimes explicit) idea that American is the best thing in the world to be and America is the best place to be it - everyone and everywhere else are second best. It's great for our collective patriotism, but as a result, our worldview is severely limited and we miss out on some of the best parts of our global society: the people.
It's a fascination with people as much as with the technical aspects of language that keeps me studying and teaching it. After all, the more languages you're able to express yourself in, the more people you can talk to, even if it's only in a rudimentary fashion. Language - and bilingualism (hopefully multilingualism, eventually) - is something of a hobby for me. Other people scrapbook; I speak, read, translate, teach French. Other people talk about taking pottery classes in their spare time; when I have some spare time, I'll take classes in a third language.
The more languages we can understand, the more people and ideas we can access where they live, so to speak. (I'd love to read The Alchemist in the original Portuguese - as incredibly beautiful as it is in English, I can only imagine how gorgeous it is as Paulo Coelho wrote it.) Because it's people and their ideas that make the world go round. They're constantly reaching out to one another, working together to push the world - and us with it - forward, and the more people any of us can connect with, the more of an impact any single idea can have. So why not bilingualism, as a hobby, or a way of life?
I would love to raise my future children bilingual, because the array of extra doors a second (or third, or fourth, or...) language can open is both fascinating and useful. But the idea is a little daunting, since although I have some friends who were essentially raised bilingual - and in some cases trilingual - it was more accidental or environmental than intentional, at least as far as I know. Blogging on Bilingualism offers a forum for discussion and the sharing of an infinite variety of practical information for parents of children growing up bilingual - and an additional source of fascination and information for language geeks like me.
In some of the ways the blog's author, Eve Bodeux, describes how she teaches her children or watches them learn, and some of the comments from other readers about their children, I recognize some of the same tricks I used when I was living in France, although I was 20 at the time. I wanted to read more than newspapers in French without having to reach for a dictionary every five seconds, so I picked up the French translation of Harry Potter. I knew the basic idea of the story since I'd seen the films, so I could follow along even if I wasn't catching every word, and knowing the general context helped me learn new vocabulary. (Of course, when I read the seventh book in English, because I couldn't wait until the French translation was released, I was completely confused. What in the world is Disapparating? It's en transplanant that you get from one place to another, not by using this Disapparition nonsense!) Eve talks about having her children watch familiar films, like Disney's, dubbed in the target language - the second language you want them to learn - and it's the same idea: kids know the story and can follow along, but they're learning new vocabulary while they do.
One of the most interesting points made by Eve and some of her readers is that it doesn't really matter if one parent's use of the target language is less than perfect. As long as children hear a variety of native speakers - whether on TV, in films, or in real life - the slight mispronunciations and small grammatical errors a non-native speaker might make won't affect them. It's hearing the target language consistently, its vocabulary, its syntax and some of the cultural background that go with them, that matters. And I think that applies to anyone learning a second language, no matter their age. There were some grammatical errors that made the rounds of my study abroad program, since we were all American students speaking French and tended to parrot each others' phrases - and inevitably, mistakes - but they gradually worked their way out of our collective system as we interacted more and more with native French-speaking professors, merchants and host families.
You probably know that the U.S. system for teaching foreign language is far from ideal. We introduce a foreign language in middle school or high school, while kids in most other countries are introduced to English or another foreign language at about the same time they start formal schooling. The science behind this is that your jaw solidifies when you're fairly young - I've heard anything from six to twelve on that one - and after it does, it's much more difficult to learn the correct pronunciation of languages that use different parts of the face and throat than your own. (French, for example, uses the mouth a lot more than English does - the sounds are fuller - and of course, there's the hacking, gagging 'r' sound. I tell my students to pretend they're gargling with water.)
We also just don't put the same kind of importance on learning a foreign language as other societies do, and I think it's our loss. Young people from other countries often come to study or work in the U.S. for a time and feel comfortable doing so, because they've studied English since elementary school. In comparison, very few Americans venture beyond our borders for any appreciable period of time, I think in large part because it's so completely outside our comfort zone. We're raised with the implicit (and sometimes explicit) idea that American is the best thing in the world to be and America is the best place to be it - everyone and everywhere else are second best. It's great for our collective patriotism, but as a result, our worldview is severely limited and we miss out on some of the best parts of our global society: the people.
It's a fascination with people as much as with the technical aspects of language that keeps me studying and teaching it. After all, the more languages you're able to express yourself in, the more people you can talk to, even if it's only in a rudimentary fashion. Language - and bilingualism (hopefully multilingualism, eventually) - is something of a hobby for me. Other people scrapbook; I speak, read, translate, teach French. Other people talk about taking pottery classes in their spare time; when I have some spare time, I'll take classes in a third language.
The more languages we can understand, the more people and ideas we can access where they live, so to speak. (I'd love to read The Alchemist in the original Portuguese - as incredibly beautiful as it is in English, I can only imagine how gorgeous it is as Paulo Coelho wrote it.) Because it's people and their ideas that make the world go round. They're constantly reaching out to one another, working together to push the world - and us with it - forward, and the more people any of us can connect with, the more of an impact any single idea can have. So why not bilingualism, as a hobby, or a way of life?
Friday, April 3, 2009
Way to go, Iowa!
"How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?"
A sentence from the Iowa Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage, and an excellent question. The Iowa Supreme Court came to the obvious conclusion: it can't. The court filed a unanimous decision today, voiding the Iowa statute that limits civil marriage (and I'm sure you can guess, given my earlier post on this topic, that I'm thrilled with the specification of civil marriage) to "a union between a man and a woman" as a violation of the Iowa Constitution's equal protection clause, effectively legalizing gay marriage in the state. Way to go, Iowa!
The trend that seems to be developing around this issue is interesting: the courts are ahead of the curve (i.e. state legislatures, the national government and in some unfortunate cases, our fellow citizens) on what exactly "equality" means today. And hopefully we won't see a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage show up on the ballot in Iowa the way we did in California - and Arizona and Florida, although only California's supreme court ruled on the issue - last fall.
The decision is actually a pretty interesting read. (No, I'm not in the habit of reading court decisions, but I was curious! ...and I'm only on page 20 of 69.) It addresses the fluid history of "equality" in the United States and cites multiple instances in which Iowa has been well ahead of the national standard: admitting women to the bar, outlawing slavery, ruling against segregation - and now allowing gay couples to marry. One of my favorite quotes:
A sentence from the Iowa Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage, and an excellent question. The Iowa Supreme Court came to the obvious conclusion: it can't. The court filed a unanimous decision today, voiding the Iowa statute that limits civil marriage (and I'm sure you can guess, given my earlier post on this topic, that I'm thrilled with the specification of civil marriage) to "a union between a man and a woman" as a violation of the Iowa Constitution's equal protection clause, effectively legalizing gay marriage in the state. Way to go, Iowa!
The trend that seems to be developing around this issue is interesting: the courts are ahead of the curve (i.e. state legislatures, the national government and in some unfortunate cases, our fellow citizens) on what exactly "equality" means today. And hopefully we won't see a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage show up on the ballot in Iowa the way we did in California - and Arizona and Florida, although only California's supreme court ruled on the issue - last fall.
The decision is actually a pretty interesting read. (No, I'm not in the habit of reading court decisions, but I was curious! ...and I'm only on page 20 of 69.) It addresses the fluid history of "equality" in the United States and cites multiple instances in which Iowa has been well ahead of the national standard: admitting women to the bar, outlawing slavery, ruling against segregation - and now allowing gay couples to marry. One of my favorite quotes:
"The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that 'times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,' and as our constitution 'endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom' and equality."Let's hope the rest of the country takes a lesson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
