The sound and the fury? Interpreting foreign pitch and volume

 

[multiple converations*]

Consider these two scenes: (1) I remember hearing my ex-neighbors, of Iranian and Tunisian background with four kids, always speaking very loudly, giving me the impression that they were screaming all the time. In fact, I came to understand that was their normal tone of voice; they reserved a much louder tone for their fights; (2) My wife and I are enjoying a delicious goulash in a Budapest restaurant and sitting at a table just outside the party hall of the restaurant where some 30 Hungarians are busy drinking. I have heard more heated discussions at a funeral.

I bring up these examples, maybe extreme, to illustrate how difficult it is to interpret the pitch, linguistically referred to as the intonation, and volume of foreign cultures, not to mention to imitate them. Normal conversation tone varies from culture to culture and language to language and defies any universal rules. One person’s argument is another person’s small talk. A person wanting to correctly interpret the mood of a discussion has to be acquainted with the pitch and volume patterns of that language and culture. Over time and with enough practice, it is sometimes possible to adopt and apply those patterns.

Changes in pitch vary from language to language. On the one extreme are the flat languages where no vocal emphasis is placed on any specific word or phrase. For example, normal Russian conversation typically has no ups or downs and disappears into the sunset at the end, often running out of gas before the last word. People add emotion and interrogation through even minor pitch changes. By contrast, Latin languages, including Spanish and French, involve multiple peaks and valleys with the exact pattern depending on the local variant. Natives often interpret flat speech as either angry or non-native. Language has a song ranging from rap to opera but its meaning is contextual.

Furthermore, some countries are louder than others. Some people by nature and convention naturally speak at a high volume than others. Of course, listeners from other countries may consider this level screaming. On the other hand, those used to high decibels find the relative quiet of English conversation, to name one example, a bit disconcerting as it seems so lifeless, even disinteresed.  Curiously enough, in some cultures high volume expresses anger while in others it is normal excitement. When abroad, wise travelers should avoid jumping to conclusions about the emotion behind the speech. It could be just a normal conversation or a pleasant chat. Your native language reference may be completely irrelevant.

If a person is planning to spend any significant time in a country and wants to effectively interact with the locals, it is good idea to listen and learn. There is no sin  in asking someone about the exact content and specific tone of a conversation. Within a short time, it become increasingly easier to interpret the situation. As for speaking like a native, that is a far longer process. To apply a foreign intonation, the learner must practice saying common phrases with the correct intonation. Overtime, the throat learns to modulate as a native speaker does but such training does take time and effort. Then, and only then, can a person truly speak a native.

Based on a person’s native tongue, it may seem that people in a foreign country are constantly furious or bored. However, as Sporting Life said in Porgy and Bess, it ain’t necessarily so. Conversational tone and volume are not universal.

* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.

Picture credit

I am a flashlight (with apologies to Christopher Isherwood)

Computers and Internet have changed education. While schoolrooms still use books, paper pen and pencil, the tools of learning are increasingly computers, laptops, pads, cell phones and Google, not to mention Facebook and Instagram. Wikipedia has replaced Encyclopedia Britannica. I, as a teacher of English to engineering students at a college in Israel for over 25 years, have experienced this transition first hand, admittedly with mixed feelings and some resistance.

This revolution brings into question what exactly the role of a modern teacher is. Specifically, children have direct, unlimited and easy access to far better sources of information than any single teacher can produce. Students can find countless problems and solutions, including explanations, for any technical exercise in any field online, including English grammar, mathematical problems and chemical reactions. These online services are available around the clock, whenever students have the time and inclination to learn, as compared to the artificial hours of 8:00 am to 3:00 pm.  Moreover, the students can make errors, work at their own pace and express confusion without fear of ridicule from others, unless they choose otherwise. In other words, they can choose their ideal conditions.

Notwithstanding all these advantages, while today’s students may know more facts, they are far from better achievers from their antiquated parents or even grandparents. A look at achievement test scores, matriculation tests and even Facebook conversations worldwide paints a sad picture of current thinking and understanding skills. It is as if the plethora of information is at the expense of the ability to understand it. As a way of analogy, ancient Greek and Roman doctors, lacking imaging equipment and often the right to even do an autopsy, extrapolated incredible amounts of information from their limited data.

Several years ago, my department head, for some reason, asked the staff what we thought our main role was. My answer did not mention grammar, reading comprehension or vocabulary. I wrote at the time that it was to open the world to our students. What I meant and still mean is that my role as a teacher is show how information is related, the connection between past, present and future and the manner in which this world was and is being created.  I am not there mainly to provide facts or techniques but to shine a light on the whole picture, much of which students are completely ignorant and unaware, and give them tools to understand and interpret it.

As an example from my youth, in High School, we were studying the American Civil War (1860-1865), specifically its background. The teacher has us recreate the Dred Scott Supreme Court case (1857) in which it was ruled that a black man that escaped from the South was still considered property even though he lived in the North, where slavery was illegal. We spent at least two weeks researching and playing our roles.  During these two weeks, that teacher could have covered much more material, i.e., information.  However, we students gained an understanding of the social, legal and political situation in the United States before the Civil War, which could be extrapolated to after the war and even today and how to understand decisions from other cultures and eras that don’t make sense today. Thus, the teacher did not feed us facts but instead illuminated a historical and learning process.

As I am fortunate to teach a subject that is a tool, not a body of knowledge, I have the privilege of discussing, exposing and educating. Teachers can and must communicate the how and why, not only that the what. Learning should not only create pride over good grades but also a feeling of “wow” as a result of a moment of illumination as suddenly, for a moment, the world becomes clearer and more connected, even four dimensional. Teachers are, at their best, the flashlights of understanding, then and now.