Speed tests for Internet connections

Hmm, not so fast today (2015.03.30) compared to last week (2015.03.24-26).

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4242315478

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4239010192

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4236864186

The languages of Japan

Thanks to David Paul (LinkedIn) for pointing out a great post by Keiko Tanaka (GlobalVoices) about endangered languages in Japan, in which she interviewed Byron Fija (official site).

• Japan's Endangered Languages Still Considered Mere Dialects (GlobalVoices, 2014.03.01).

Tanaka's interview shed light on a number of issues related to definitions of and attitudes towards those languages in Japan, in particular, the tagging of a group of them, Ryukyuan languages, as dialects. The interview post included a detailed map of the Ryukyuan languages by Fija, with transliterations by Tanaka. The lines across the East China Sea in the map as well as the text of the interview highlighted lack of homogeneity among the languages of Japan.

To lean in and round up the discussion, I'd like to share a mashup of notes about disputed higher level classifications of Japanese and arguably related languages that I'd sent to a student working on a graduation paper last year. Here is the mashup:

I used the DigitalColor Meter app (a Mac app.) to check the area north and east of Korea and Japan [in a map from Before It's News, 2013], both of which were color-coded as isolates. Though it was [coded] the same color, the area to the NE of Korea and Japan may actually be a Yupik branch of Eskimo-Aleut (Wikipedia, Eskimo-Aleut languages, ¶4).

(close-up from Before It's News, 2013)

That same area NE of Korea and Japan is color-coded as Paleo-Siberian in another map (Wikipedia, Primary Human Language Families Map). The Primary Human Language Families Map still coded Korean as an isolate, but coded Japonic as a separate family of languages, one which may include Ryukyuan languages (Lewis, 2013).

There is plenty of controversy about relationships among Japanese, Korean, and other languages, for instance: "According to its [Altaic's] proponents, Altaic is a language family comprising at least Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic" (Wikipedia, Classification of Japonic, Altaic hypothesis, ¶1). 

The idea of a Japanese-Korean relationship overlaps the extended form of the Altaic hypothesis..., but not all scholars who argue for one also argue for the other. For example, Samuel Martin, who was a major advocate of a Japanese-Korean relationship, only provided cautious support to the inclusion of these languages in Altaic, and Talat Tekin, an Altaicist, includes Korean, but not Japanese, in Altaic....  

 (Wikipedia, Classification of Japonic, Korean hypothesis, ¶6).

Pereltsvaig (2012) summed up controversy about an Altaic language family, suggesting similarities [among those languages] might be due to borrowing rather than genetic[, but the matter is by no means resolved]. Lewis (2013) reexamined related issues.

…

References
Lewis, Martin W. (2013). Altaic and Related Languages. GeoCurrents. Retrieved from http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/altaic-and-related-languages 

Pereltsvaig, Asya. (2012). The Altaic family controversy. GeoCurrents. Retrieved from http://www.geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/siberia/the-altaic-family-controversy

(pab, personal correspondence, 2013.12.14)

Viewed from both up and down the human language family tree, it seems clear that the languages of Japan are neither homogeneous nor unique. Hopefully we'll achieve a modicum of certainty before the majority of those languages in the far reaches of Japan die out completely.

[501 words]

Two articles, one after the other: 1 + 1 = 0.5?

Toward the end of last year, two extremely similar articles about one study showed up in social media networks for language educators worldwide. Both articles splashed on sensational headlines to make it sound almost like the findings represented everyone in Japan – population: 127 million (2010 estimate, WolframAlpha). 

1. Nearly 90% dissatisfied with Japan's English education: survey – The Mainichi, December 3, 2012; and
• Arama, they didn't! LiveJournal, December 4, 2012
• 21st Century English Langauge Learners, Teachers and Administrators: Ajaan Rob Hatfield, Scoop.it, December 5, 2012
• TESOL Intl Assn, Twitter, December 5, 2012
2. Japanese highly unhappy with English education quality in the country – Ida Torres, The Japan Daily Press, December 4, 2012
• TESOL International Association, English Langauge Bulletin; December 12, 2012
• ELT Professionals around the World: Ian Butler, LinkedIn, c. December 15, 2012

Neither of those two articles cites the Rakuten Research study in a way that enables readers to find it easily. Nor do any of the other as-is social media representations of the articles shed any additional light on the subject.

If you're interested in reading either the original Rakuten Research press release, or the online report, both dated November 21, 2012; they're here:

• 楽天リサーチ、「日本の英語教育」に関する調査を発表 (press release)
• http://corp.rakuten.co.jp/news/press/2012/1121_02.html
• Apparently not published in English (press releases [2012])
• 日本の英語教育に関する調査 (report)
• http://research.rakuten.co.jp/report/20121121/
• PDF: http://research.rakuten.co.jp/report/pdf/english_20121121.pdf
• Though the filename seems to suggest that the PDF is in English, it isn't.

At best, both articles cherry-picked findings from a Rakuten Research report covering only 1000 subjects, parents of children whom the articles describe variously as "underage" (Mainichi) or simply "young" (Torres). The survey actually involved 1000 16- to 69-year-old men and women with non-adult children (report, ¶1). The prospective population from which those 1000 responses derived included approximately two and a quarter million subscribed monitors (report, ¶1) earning points redeemable for Rakuten services – a response rate of approximately 0.04%.

Naoto Kan and the End of 'Japan Inc.' | The Nation

Naoto Kan and the End of 'Japan Inc.' | The Nation:

A surprising enough find for April 7, this article "...[a]ppeared in the April 18 [sic], 2011 edition of The Nation." It offers a critical appraisal of numerous issues entwined with U.S. foreign relations.