FAQ

Here I answer questions which are often asked of me. This saves me time having to rewrite answers. This is Jonathan North Washington's wiki, btw.

Linguistics

"What do you do?"

See my home page for a description of what I do.

"What languages do you speak?"

Well, linguistics isn't about what languages I speak (see below), but I do know a few. I'm a native speaker of English. I also speak French, Spanish, and Russian fairly well (though I can usually only deal with one of those at a time, and Russian especially interferes with Spanish for me), and I can converse at a basic level in Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Yiddish. I also know a bunch of other languages with basic reading and writing ability, but can't speak them very well. See my resumé.

"What is linguistics?"

In general, linguistics is the scientific study of language. Linguists desire to understand language and its psychological reality—what may and may not be possible systems for languages, and why. For a more thorough explanation, see wikipedia's article on linguistics.

"What is phonology?"

Phonology is the study of languages' sound systems; i.e., it has the same goals as linguistics, but focuses on systems related to the manner of language production. See wikipedia's article on phonology.

"What camp of phonology do you subscribe to?"

I like phonetically grounded Optimality Theory, and at this point it's probably what I'm most familiar with. I'm willing to work with other frameworks, though, and take issue with the way some things are done in OT.

"What camp of syntax to you subscribe to?"

This is hard, since I'm not familiar enough with much beyond GB. Really, everything's looked about as good to me so far. Minimalism shows some promise, but I don't know enough about it (does anyone? Just kidding..). The one theory that stands out as making a lot of sense to me is Jackendoff's so called "simpler syntax". I can't say I'll join that camp just yet, though, as I have some reading to do first.

Also, HPSG seems much more predictive than other frameworks, so I like it for that. It seems far separated from the cognitive aspect, though, which I'm never fond of in a linguistic theory.

Kyrgyzstan

Кыргызстанга эмне үчүн келдиң?

Биринчи ирет 2006 жылдагы июль жана август айында Кыргызстанга келдим. Мен ошол убакта Казакстанда казак тилин өйрөнүп жатканмын, жана эки досум Кыргызстанда бираз өйрөнүшкөн. Алар "Кыргызстанга кел, дем ал" деп айтып, ошондуктан мен келип, эки жарым жумага өлкөдө саякатка барып көптү көргөнмүн. Кыргыздар менен казак тилинде сөйлөгөндө, кыргыз тили менен кызыктырылдым - башка чөлкөмдөрдө кыргыз тилин башкача сөйлөгөнүн мага бөтөнчө кызыктырган.

Ошондо кыргыз диалектерин изилдегим келип, Фулбрайт грантына арыз бердим. Мен грантка кабыл алынганда, Кыргызстанга келип, Бишкекте квартира таптым. 2007 жылында Октябрь башынан кыргыз тилин өйрөнүп жатканмын. Кыш ичинде изилдөөмдү Кыргызстанды катар баштамакчымын.

Фулбрайт деген эмне

"Фулбрайт" деген эл аралык грант. Башка өлкөдө турган адамдар бир-бирин түшүндүрүш үчүн Американын өкмөтү окуучулар жана окумуштууларга грант берет. Окуучулар бир проект аткарыш керек - мисалы, менин проектим - кыргыз диалекттерин изилдөө деген проект. Америкалык окумуштуулар грант алса, башка өлкөдө окутат. Гранттын дагы варианттары бар - мисалы Америкадан башка өлкөдөн окуучулар алышы болот, Америкада окуш үчүн. Ошол жөнүндө дагы окусаңыз болот.

Изилдөөмдү аткарыш керек деп жаздым, бирок Американын өкмөтүнө беришим керек жок. Изилдөөм өзүмө - мисалы, келечекте кыргыз диалекттери тууралуу жазармын. Гранттын эң маңыздуу максаты бир проектти аткарыш эмес - ордуна ал өзүнүн өлкөсүнөн башка жерде жашаш, ошол жактагылар менен бир-бирин жакшы түшүнүш, жана окумуштуулар менен маалымат эркин алмашыш.

Изилдөөң кандай?

Мен өзүм лингвист жана туркологмун. Лингвист деген филологго окшойт. Лингвисттер тил менен кызыктырылат, бирок филологторго окшошпогондо адабият менен кызыктырылбайт. Лингвисттерге эң маңыздуу суроо деген "адам мээсинде тил кантип иштейт?". Балдар тил өйрөнүшүш үчүн, мээлери кандай болуш керек? Дүйнөдөгү тилдерде кайсы системалар табыла алат, кайсылар табыла албайт? Эмне үчүн?

Мен лингвистика ичинде фонология жана фонетика менен кызыктырылам. Фонология деген тилдин тыбыштарынын системасы жөнүндө илим. Фонетика деген жөн эле тыбыш жөнүндө илим. Мен кыргыз тилинин фонологиясы жана фонетикасы менен кызыктырылып жатам. Ал тууралуу көбүрөөк билгим келет. Ошондуктан, кыргыз тилинин диалекттерин изилдегенде, фонетика жана фонология боюнча диалекттердин айырмачылыктарына көңүл бөлүп жатам.

Kazakhstan

"Why have you gone to Kazakhstan / Central Asia?"

This question is often asked by both my American and Kazakh friends.

Сен қазақ болсаң, Қазақстан неге қызық жер екенін білмесең, нағыз қазақ емессің ғой! Қазақ тілі неге қызық екенін білмесең, лингвистика түсінбейсің - ал мына мәселе емес ;) Жоғары оқы.

As a linguist, all languages interest me. In particular, I've become fascinated by Turkic languages (and more generally in Altaic languages). After this interest originally developed (I'd studied Uzbek and Tatar each for a summer), I was invited to spend the summer in Almaty, so I did, with the idea in mind to learn as much Kazakh as I could. It began to sink in that Kazakh is a really neat language from a linguistic point of view, with lots and lots of material which has yet to be studied in the framework of theoretical linguistics (see above). So I go back to Kazakhstan (and Kyrgyzstan) when I can, to better learn Kazakh (and Kyrgyz) and conduct research. I also like to spend time with the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz in general (the local Russians and other peoples aren't bad either;), and have lots of friends in Central Asia now.

"Where's Kazakhstan?"

This question is often asked by my American friends. Lots of information can be found in wikipedia's article on Kazakhstan.

"Қазақша білесің бе не?"

Жаңа қазақ таныстарым бұл сұрақ әдетте сұрады.

Бірінші нәрсе - мен қазақ емеспін. :-P Жай америкалықпын.

Сондықтан, мен неге қазақ тілін білемін? Неге Қазақстанға бардым деген сұраққа жауап аздап жоғарырақ.

Қайдан білемін? Әбден, Алматыдағы Дарын Институтынан, Атырау Мемликеттік Университеттен, және Индиана Университетінде үйрендім. Әрінде бір жаз оқыдым.

Не үшін? Көрейік!

Views

"What do you think about Borat?" / "Борат жек көреміз, сенші?"

Everyone has different views about the "Borat" craze. Since I study Kazakhstan, and am one of few Americans to have some understanding of Kazakhstan from within Kazakh society, I feel that I should comment on this for my American friends. Қазақша сөйлейтін қазақ әлеуметі және дәстүрлері түсінетін америкалықтай, қазақ достарым үшін ойларымды беруім қажет екен.

What Borat teaches

• "How racism [can feed as much] on dumb conformity [as] rabid bigotry." It's obvious that the racist views expressed by Borat are not those of Sascha Cohen. This is satire--satire of not just people who are overtly racist, but of those who are are willing to blindly follow. Borat teaches us to be cautious and to think about what we do so that we do not blindly conform.
• What Kazakhstan is not. Borat's image is so over the top that viewers understand that his character is not actually indended to depict people from Kazakhstan. For many viewers, this will spark a curiosity to learn more about Kazakhstan.
• That people are accepting of foreigners, as outrageous as their views may be. It's humourous when one of Borat's "subjects" tries to explain why a view he expresses isn't considered appropriate in our society. This makes Western viewers really consider the "why" of their culture, which is the first step towards accepting others.
• That even the most prim among us are human beings. We're all human, even Borat's character, and while people don't always get along with him or understand or even accept his "views", they are usually willing to humour him. We're all human, despite tremendous differences not just in background, but in belief.
• Borat's crude mannerisms but willingness to deal with polite society shows people in polite socity that they are also capable of crude manerisms. This shows much of the world--who balance their lives between revelling in some crudeness and being polite--that neither is inherently bad or good. Each aspect of a person's character has its place and time, and part of the humour of Borat is mixing this up.

What Borat does not teach

• That Kazakhs are crude, or that Kazakh society is misogynous and anti-Semitic. If people don't get that Borat's not an accurate reflection of Kazakhs, the joke's on them. In more ways than one.
• Anti-semitism. Borat does not teach people to be anti-semitic, nor should people be offended by his anti-semitism. The point of his effected anti-semitism is to show how generally racist society can be, especially when trying to play along. It also shows how much some people expect to anti-semitism--whether they're anti-semitic or not--from outside their own society. This form of anti-semitism is--once again--satire.

Main Argument

My main argument relies on the understanding that Borat is not humour in that it makes fun of Kazakhstan and Kazakhs, but is humour in that it makes fun of people who don't know anything about Kazakhstan. When people accept Borat as a Kazakh, and don't know that this isn't how Kazakhs act or what they believe, the joke is on them. The way they act after this makes them (and not Borat) look like an ignorant fool. Sascha Baron Cohen's Borat act is designed to get this response from people, and not designed to spread lies about Kazakhstan.

As the NY Times puts it (source needed!):

...it seems as if comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is mocking Kazakhstan. He is not. He's mocking you. After all, you're the idiot who doesn't know where Kazakhstan is or if it's the kind of place where, as Borat claims, there's a "Running of the Jews". And more important, you're the idiot who believes so much in cultural relativism that you'll nod politely when a guy tells you that in his country they keep developmentally disabled people in cages. Or, worse yet, you're the person who tells him it's not a bad idea...

Banning

Kazakhstan threatened to sue Sascha Cohen, and now Russia's banned the movie. This, in my opinion, is a very old-fashioned paranoid Soviet attitude towards everything. How can people in Russia know if they're offended by the movie or not unless they see it? Or at least know some people who have seen it. If only the three people who decided to ban it have seen it, people will just have to believe them that it was offensive, and they won't be able to make their own opinion. (And okay, I even feel it was slightly offensive--just not to Kazakhs as much as some other groups). And Kazakhstan is continuing its advertising campaign to show how progressive a country it's becoming. This is fair, though I can't imagine very many people watching the movie are going to believe that he's actually from Kazakhstan--it's so obviously one big joke, and a lot of it even seems staged. If people can't see that, I worry about how shallow they are. The governments of Russia and Kazakhstan are being quite shallow themselves. If any country should ban Borat, it's the US. I wouldn't be surprised if I woke up tomorrow and heard that Alabama had banned it.

Links

Borat vs. Kazakhstan - A good read with a good outlook.

Revised Statement

A bulletted list, to make my points more discrete and clearer:

1. I don't support the movie.
   1. It takes advantage of people harmed in filming.
   2. It takes advantage of American ignorance.
   3. It reinforces stereotypes.
   4. It creates stereotypes.
2. I don't support banning the movie.
   1. The movie is offensive to a lot of people. So are most governments.
   2. Banning things is rarely constructive.
   3. Voicing objections is a constructive way to disapprove of the film.
   4. Participation in forums (such as facebook) is a constructive way to approach, create, and discuss issues and criticism.
   5. ((If the movie were banned in the US, the gvt would immediately be criticised. But there would've been no controversy about the movie, and people would get the impression that the gvt is a bunch of jerks who were no doubt scared of something that they had no reason to be scared of. People would know nothing about the movie or why it was banned, and would imagine that it couldn't possibly be as bad as the government thought. And no one would learn anything from it.))
3. While the movie is quite certainly presenting society with a [fictional] negative image of Kazakhstan, I do not beleive this was necessarily the intent of Sascha Baron Cohen. This is irrelevant though.
4. Many parts of the movie were intended to make fun of American society and stereotypes to make Americans see themselves being idiots.
5. Many parts of the movie were intended to take advantage of American society and stereotypes to make Americans laugh.
6. There were parts of the movie that presented stereotypes about people from Kazakhstan *not for Borat's interviewees, but for the movie viewers*. These were no doubt added for the purpose of making the movie flow better (leading to better sales?), and counters the supposed intent of the movie: "to allow people to bring out their own prejudices" (Cohen).
7. Taking advantage of American society and stereotypes as in (5) can be harmful, in that it can further promote existing negative elements.
8. People who understand that these stereotypes are being taken advantage of and who realise that many different things are being inaccurately represented may enjoy some of the humour, but probably won't appreciate it as much as others.
9. People who don't understand that these stereotypes are being exploited and don't realise that many groups are being misportrayed are the ones who will go on believing in the stereotypes, potentially more strongly than before.
   1. The people mentioned here are more prevalent than I'd like to think, and they're the reason "society" gets "impressions" about things.
   2. It is not, in fact, that a view spreads out into society, but rather that people accept a view as truth, and purvey it themselves through hegemonic devices such as arguments of post-hockery. That fact that many people are not cautious about this is not indicative of problems in society, but itself does cause problems in society.
   3. Enough people (quite likely the majority in America) know that Borat is a fictional character, and that his Kazakhstan is even more fictional, that anyone who doesn't realise this will be ridiculed.
   4. ((Several of my friends have reported to me that someone they knew didn't know Kazakhstan was a real place, and/or that they thought Borat really was from Kazakhstan. These people have gotten laughed at for their ingorance, and have lost respect in the eyes of my friends who know them.))

Vegetarianism

I'm a vegetarian. However, I occasionally eat meat, especially when overseas. Why? I like meat. Then why am I a vegetarian? Because I don't like factory farming. I don't mind eating meat in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, because factory farming is almost unheard of; farm animals there live free lives. Why do I eat meat in America then? I like it, and if it's what's for dinner, I won't pressure anyone into changing the menu, since I'll probably like it. Also, if there's a choice, and I think the meat will be exceptionally good, I might eat it.

But I'm still a vegetarian. But how can I be a vegetarian if I eat meat? Well, I'm not eating meat right now, right? ..So I don't eat it very often, and it's my beliefs, not my actions, I think, that count if you have to put labels on me. :-P Besides, I'm a vegetarian except when I eat meat, which I've spent maybe ... a small fraction of a small fraction of a percent of my life doing.

For the record, I've heard many arguments for and against vegetarianism, and agree at least to some extent with most of them [on both sides]. Some of my favourites against vegetarianism include "I'm at the top of the food chain and am proud of it," and "I like meat too much to be a vegetarian." The horrors of factory farming and my slight squeamishness about killing things are my main arguments for vegetarianism.