Category: Weekly Tasks

The Story of Emma’s Birth: So this is a story of the day that my daughter Emma was born, which was October 27 and it was definitely one to remember it was in the mid morning and we just woken up or actually my wife had already woken up earlier and then I got up my wife came to me and said that she thought her water might be broken. It wasn’t like in the movies though where I got a water came out. We actually weren’t sure if it had actually happened and we waited for a while and google to see what we should do Waited up having breakfast and then we decided to go to the hospital. This is when we scramble to get things together. Our hospital bag was mostly packed, but we were worried that we might have forgotten something remember carrying out so much stuff to the car that I wasn’t sure we would need to drive to the hospital wasn’t too long, but I felt like it took forever when we got there the nurses were really good like they were calm and kind and they just walked through us through everything like it was no big deal even though I I’ll teach to us we eventually saw a Doctor Who checked my wife and say that her water had indeed broken that our baby will be coming today we were just in total shock and not sure what to do at this point, but I guess that choice had already been made for us. It was a crazy feeling, knowing that our daughter would be there that day the Earth itself. It’s hard to describe you’re tired right on adrenaline and suddenly there was a tiny person in the room with you. It’s a surreal And the Doctor Who delivered our baby asked if I wanted to cut umbilical cord to which I said yes, the cord was a lot tougher or harder to cut, and I thought it was kind of rubbery and then the real learning started we went to a recovery room where we held our daughter for the first time she was still sleeping and had it started crying much but I would change soon The first night. Oh it was rough. Neither of us slept much. I didn’t sleep much either and woke up every two hours ago sometimes it was more like every 30 minutes to eat, and I realize that I had no clue of how to do half the things I just assumed that figure out changing the diaper for the first time. Let’s just say, I didn’t realize how quickly things can escalate. There was a Full on poop explosion at one point like everywhere and the poop is as thick blocked our like substance that is super hard to clean so that’s something I had to figure out in the moment and bottle feeding yeah that was another state learning curve. The nurses were so patient, though they asked us exactly what to do even when I was fumbling around, trying to get it right and although we didn’t bottle fee to start because Emma can only take small amount of food, we use syringes with formula to put in her mouth when we got home, we had to get my grandma to come over to help for the first night and honestly, I don’t know what we would’ve done without her. She watched Emma overnight so that we could finally get some sleep and I think we only slept 6 to 7 hours over the previous four days combined my mom also came over and help a lot, which is very needed in the early weeks and then closer to Christmas my wife’s mom flew in from Japan for 10 days having her here was just so special she cooked for us and helped to watch Emma so that we could take some personal time like going out to eat for the first time in the restaurant since our daughter was born and it was really amazing to see her meet Emma for the first time too looking back now it’s kind of a blur, lotta sleepless nights a lot of learning as we went but also those little moments are sick with me like holding Emma for the first time and something I’ll never forget today. Emma is 2 1/2 months old and has already changed and grown so much senior smile for the first time was amazing. I can’t wait to see her grow up more as well.

How does the text deviate from conventions of written English? What is “wrong” in the text? What is “right”? When I checked the results of my transcribed story (created via speech-to-text on my iPhone), the first thing I noticed was the significant limitations of the available technology. The text contained numerous run-on sentences and missing punctuation that I would typically correct if I were writing the story instead of dictating it. For example, the sentence: “So this is a story of the day that my daughter Emma was born, which was October 27 and it was definitely one to remember it was in the mid morning and we just woken up or actually my wife had already woken up earlier and then I got up my wife came to me and said that she thought her water might be broken” lacks proper punctuation and structure, making it difficult to follow. The lack of formatting (i.e. paragraphs) also affects the reading of the text, where it is challenging to see when the story transitions to a new topic or event. Additionally, there were transcription errors where the technology misinterpreted my words. For instance: “Poop is as thick blocked our like substance” should read “poop with a thick black-like substance.” “Waited up having breakfast and then we decided to go to the hospital” should be “We ended up having breakfast and then we decided to go to the hospital.” These errors obscured the intended meaning of my story, and broke the aforementioned conventions of written English. This experience also helped me to understand why many of my students in the past have become frustrated when using this technology in the classroom. Despite these issues, there are a couple aspects of the text that I think work well. The transcription captured the personal (and colourful) expressions of my oral storytelling, such as describing a “full-on poop explosion.” Additionally, descriptions such as “the cord was a lot tougher or harder to cut, and I thought it was kind of rubbery,” mirrors how I searched for the right words in real time. Ultimately, however, the transcribed text highlights the challenges of directly translating spoken language into written form. Speech-to-text technology struggles to convey tone, cadence, and nuance, which can affect how readers (or listeners) engage with the story. What are the most common “mistakes” in the text and why do you consider them “mistakes”? As identified earlier, the most common “mistakes” in my story include a lack of formatting, frequent grammatical errors, and incorrectly transcribed words or phrases. These are mistakes because they detract from the clarity and rhythm of my narrative. Another common issue was the fragmented or run-on sentences that were created due to the inaccuracy of the technology. For example, in one part of my story it reads: “Our hospital bag was mostly packed, but we were worried that we might have forgotten something remember carrying out so much stuff to the car that I wasn’t sure we would need to drive to the hospital wasn’t too long, but I felt like it took forever when we got there the nurses were really good like they were calm.” Here the transcription missed the natural cadence and pauses of my vocal version, leading to a mess of words. What if you had “scripted” the story, what difference might that have made? In what ways does oral storytelling differ from written storytelling?  A “scripted” story would read very differently from this transcribed edition. For one, a scripted version would have conveyed my intended message more accurately than the one produced by the speech-to-text software. I would have edited for grammatical errors and ensured that every thought connected smoothly from one to the next. The descriptions would have also been more precise, avoiding the inaccuracy that occurred in the speech to text version. In addition, a scripted story might have had a clearer narrative structure. Instead of revealing the steady stream of consciousness that flowed from my thoughts as they came to me, I could have planned out the key points in advance, and added further details that I forgot about when narrating to my phone. That being said, I believe a true oral storytelling of this event, such as an audio recording, would have captured the emotional impact of my story in a way that a text version, even an edited one, may not. There is a reason why miscommunication often occurs over a text or email, as the reader misses important auditory cues that can be present in a verbal conversation. As identified by Gnanadesikan’s (2011, “although writing represents information about how words are pronounced, it does not record the identifying details of any individual utterance of those words. It records language, but not actual speech. Even in cases of dictation or courtroom stenography, much information about the actual speech is lost, such as intonation and emotional content” (p. 9). References Gnanadesikan, A.E. (2011). The first IT revolution. In The writing revolution: Cuneiform to the Internet (pp. 1-12). John Wiley & Sons.

Leave a Comment

[02:30] Dr. Boroditsky describes how the use of verbs can differ between languages, which may alter the meaning and interpretation of a statement. For example, she highlights the distinction between languages with varying degrees of specificity for tenses when using verbs, such as whether an action is ongoing, completed, or hypothetical. This concept resonated with me because, as a native English speaker learning Japanese, I’ve noticed how verb conjugation plays an important role in conveying nuanced meanings. In Japanese, verbs can not only indicate tense but also incorporate layers of politeness, formality, and even the speaker’s relationship to the subject or listener. For instance, プレゼントを差し上げます。(Purezento o sashiagemasu), meaning “I will give you a gift,” is highly formal and used when speaking to someone of higher status, such as a superior or a customer. This differs compared to プレゼントをあげる(Purezento o ageru). This is more neutral and commonly used in casual speech when addressing someone of equal or lower status.These differences reveal how deeply cultural perspectives and ways of thinking are embedded in linguistic structures.

[08:10] Here Dr. Boroditsky raises the question of “to what extent do language and culture guide what we see in the world?” She illustrates this idea with the example of how different languages organize time. For instance, in languages like English, which are written left to right, people tend to conceptualize time as moving from left to right when placing photographs in sequential order. Conversely, in languages like Arabic or Hebrew, which are written right to left, time is often visualized as flowing in the opposite direction.This idea stood out to me because, while growing up and learning Chinese, I found it strange and initially disorienting to read and write vertically, and with books read from right to left instead of left to right. It was a stark contrast to my experience with English, where text seemed naturally aligned from left to right. However, despite learning a language with different spatial organization, my conceptualization of time did not shift—it remained aligned with the left-to-right flow of English. This may be because English was my first language, and its cognitive patterns had already become deeply ingrained.

[19:40] In this portion of her presentation, Dr. Boroditsky identifies how English speakers may better distinguish between blue and green compared to other languages. This is consistent with my experience learning Japanese, where the word for “blue” (青, ao) is often used for objects that would typically be considered green in English. One example is the pedestrian crosswalk light, which flashes green but is commonly referred to as ao shingō (青信号), or “blue light,” in Japanese. Similarly, green apples and even fresh greenery are sometimes described using ao. These differences have occasionally led to confusion in conversations with my wife (who is a native Japanese speaker)! For me, this example underscored how learning a new language is not just about vocabulary but about understanding a different way of interpreting the world around us.

[32:50] Further in her analysis, Dr. Boroditsky explores how language influences what people pay attention to and remember about their environment. She describes an experiment where participants were shown videos of a subject popping a balloon, and where language cues were given beforehand. For example, participants read statements like “The toast burned” or “She burned the toast,” which subtly emphasized either the agent (who caused the action) or the event outcome. These linguistic differences shaped what participants focused on while watching the video. Those primed with agent-focused phrases like “she burned the toast” were more likely to pay attention to and recall details about who caused the balloon to pop. In contrast, participants exposed to outcome-focused phrases like “The toast burned” were more inclined to remember the event itself (the popping of the balloon) without focusing as much on who was responsible. This part stood out to me because, as a Law 12 teacher, the concept of witness memory is particularly fascinating. It made me wonder how a witness might recall an event depending on the language used during questioning. For example, asking “Who broke the vase?” versus “What happened to the vase?” might elicit entirely different memories and details, even if the event being described is the same (which is why leading questions are typically only permitted during cross-examination). Consequently, understanding how language shapes memory could have significant implications for evaluating the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

[44:40] Another point by Dr. Boroditsky that stood out to me is how “we are able to think about the world and conceptualize the world in many different ways, but we usually don’t do all of those different ways” because we are accustomed to our own cultural worldviews. This aligns with my own experience as a Social Studies teacher, where discussions often delve into political and historical topics that reveal how deeply ingrained cultural perspectives shape our understanding of complex issues. For example, when teaching about global conflicts such as the war in Ukraine or the more recent conflict between Israel and Palestine, students often approach these topics through the lens of their own cultural assumptions, which can sometimes limit their ability to empathize with or fully grasp opposing viewpoints. As well, a parallel can be drawn to Christine de Luca’s (2014) discussion on the political relationship with language and power, where the dominance of a particular language or culture can absorb and alter a ‘mother tongue,’ leading to changes in dialects and shifting identities. This illustrates how power dynamics in language not only shape communication but also affect the way individuals perceive and engage with their world.

[50:30] Finally, toward the conclusion of her presentation, Dr. Boroditsky addresses a thought-provoking question from the audience about the challenges UN translators face when working across languages that lack direct equivalents for certain vocabulary or phrases. She explains how these linguistic gaps can alter the meaning of what is being translated, as translators are often forced to choose approximations or reinterpretations that fit within the cultural and grammatical context of the target language. This process, while necessary, can subtly shift the tone, emphasis, or even intent of the original message, illustrating the complex interplay between language and meaning. This reminded me of how in my Social Studies classes, we often examine historical treaties or international agreements where the nuances of translation have led to significant misunderstandings or disputes. For example, differences in wording between what was expressed and what was written in BC’s Douglas Treaties caused significant legal disagreements over interpretations of its obligations and rights.

 

References

SAR School for Advanced Research. (2017, June 7). Lera Boroditsky, how the languages we speak shape the way we think [Video]. YouTube.

Wikitongues. (2014, September 21). WIKITONGUES: Christine speaking Shetlandic [Video]. YouTube.

Leave a Comment

My bag tells a story of my daily life and some of the roles I that inhabit. For example, as a secondary school teacher many of the items that I carry are tied to my work routines. Here we’ll examine how I use these objects, how some of them serve as “texts,” and what they reveal about me and my world.

The items in my bag serve distinct purposes throughout my day. My laptop is used for lesson planning, grading, and other work functions (although sometimes it’s also used for watching YouTube videos during my prep!). My keys unlock the doors to spaces where I teach and live, while the whistle is used for managing soccer practices. The clear file with work papers keeps me organized, and my wallet carries my cards for financial transactions and personal identification. I carry a granola bar for food on the go, headphones so I don’t disturb others in our shared department office when consuming media, and a presentation remote for slides that I use in lessons.

Several items in my bag could potentially constitute as “texts.” Namely, my laptop, presentation remote, pen/highlighter, and clear file. Each of these serve as tools that facilitate the creation, storage, or dissemination of language and communication. The laptop enables me to craft documents, deliver lessons, and engage with students digitally. The presentation remote is used to sequence through slides that contain visual and auditory information. My pen and highlighter allow me to annotate, emphasize and connect ideas. For each of these tools, they are used to denote the information and ideas that I deem to be important.

The contents of my bag also highlight the multiliteracies I navigate daily. Digital literacy is evident in my use of the laptop and remote, while print literacy is reflected in the papers, pen, and highlighter. Some items are also used to respond to physical and social environments—such as coaching soccer (i.e. whistle) or managing classroom dynamics (i.e. remote so that I can circulate through the classroom). Furthermore, the narrative of my bag aligns closely with the image I outwardly project as a teacher, as evidenced by my school’s logo on its exterior and its contents that are primarily used for teaching functions.

Fifteen or twenty-five years ago, my bag might have looked very different. For instance, a paper agenda and textbooks could replace my laptop and online planner. Handouts and essays for marking would also be found in my bag, as opposed to the digital forms that I use to grade today such as Google Classroom. These changes reflect the evolution of technology and common practice away from analog tools (although for another teacher in my department, her bag still contains many of these earlier tools as she has been teaching for over 20 years!). Conversely, if an archeologist were to analyze my bag in the future, they might view it as a snapshot of early 21st-century life. They might note the coexistence of digital and analog tools such as my laptop and clear file documents, which could be interpreted as evidence of a society in transition from one to the other.

In sum, my bag is more than a collection of objects; it’s a reflection of my roles and the technologies that shape how I interact with the world around me.

Leave a Comment