The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Many people believe myths about how the brain works
11th August 2017
by Katherine Lindemann
Even many professional educators and people with neuroscience training hold popular misconceptions.
In a recent study, researchers found that the general public believed 68 percent of brain research misconceptions, many of which relate to education and learning. Training in education or neuroscience reduced misconceptions, but did not eliminate them. We spoke with University of Houston graduate student Kelly Macdonald, who worked on the study, and Lauren McGrath, an assistant professor at the University of Denver who led it. They explain which myths are most pervasive, and why so many people believe them.
ResearchGate: What is a neuromyth?
Macdonald and McGrath: A neuromyth is a misconception about brain research and how it applies to learning and education. Neuromyths typically result from overgeneralizations or misunderstandings of scientific findings. This can make them difficult to dispel, because there is nuance that needs to be explained. As a shorthand, we collectively refer to the myths in our paper as “neuromyths” but some of them are less related to the brain and more related to learning and education, so they might just be considered myths.
RG: Can you give some examples of particularly prevalent neuromyths?
Macdonald and McGrath: Myths about dyslexia, learning styles, and being a left-brain or right-brain learner were particularly widespread. A common myth about dyslexia is that it is caused by seeing letters or words backwards. Such visual theories of dyslexia were rejected decades ago as it became clear that impairments in specific language skills, particularly phonological awareness, formed the underpinnings of dyslexia. Yet, the myth can be difficult to dispel, because it is true that some children with dyslexia do show letter reversals when they write. However, the research shows that letter reversals are not a cause of dyslexia, but rather a consequence of the disorder. So, dispelling this myth is more complicated than saying flatly that it’s wrong. The full explanation requires an understanding of the complexities of the disorder.
The learning styles myth was also very pervasive in our sample. This myth contends that students will demonstrate higher levels of achievement if they are taught in their preferred learning style, as in the popular theory distinguishing among visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learning styles. The idea that learning styles theories are a myth is very controversial, because it is so pervasive and it seems to make intuitive sense. One thing that we want to make clear is that by saying learning styles are a myth, we are not advocating for all students to be treated the same. We know that students differ from each other in their interests, motivations, strengths, and weaknesses—all of which affect learning. Our point is that the research does not find that learning styles theory can account for these differences. It’s worth noting that this doesn’t rule out the possibility of a new theory that would fare better in the future.
"The mistake lies in stretching these findings too far."
A third common myth is also related to learning differences: the idea that some of us are “left-brained” and some are “right-brained,” and that this helps explain differences in learning. This myth over-extends findings from the neuropsychological and neuroimaging literatures showing that certain cognitive skills activate one hemisphere more than another. The mistake lies in stretching these findings too far. Although there can be hemispheric differences during performance on specific tasks, the brain is a highly interconnected, dynamic system and so brain activations while performing cognitive tasks almost always span both hemispheres. So, the terms “right-brained” and “left-brained” are terms that are too extreme for the realities of human brain function.
RG: So who believes these myths?
Macdonald and McGrath: We found that exposure to education or neuroscience can help reduce belief in neuromyths to some extent, but that these groups still endorsed many of the myths at high rates. Overall, the general public believed 68 percent of the most pervasive neuromyths, the educator sample endorsed 56 percent of them, and those with high neuroscience exposure endorsed 46 percent of the neuromyths.
RG: Did these results surprise you?
Macdonald and McGrath: Our results for the educator group were pretty consistent with previous studies of educator belief in neuromyths in other countries, so we weren’t particularly surprised by those findings. However, we were surprised by the relatively high rates of endorsement in the high neuroscience exposure group, since we hypothesized that their training would equip them to reject these inaccurate statements related to the brain and learning.
RG: Why do you think even people with training in neuroscience and education believe these myths?
Macdonald and McGrath: We speculate that it depends on the type of training. We could see in our data that people with neuroscience training were more successful at rejecting myths related to the brain, like the idea that people only use 10 percent of their brain. But this group performed less well on myths that were related to learning and education. This finding suggests that their training in neuroscience didn’t necessarily translate to topics that are relevant to psychology and education.
For educators, we know that there is a lot of interest in neuroscience findings and their application to education, but introductory courses in neuroscience are not a typical part of the curriculum for teacher preparation. The fact that the profession is interested in neuroscience but there is little training in this highly complex and dynamic field may leave educators vulnerable to neuromyths.
"There is a clearly a proliferation of 'brain-based' claims in education, and it is important that educators have foundational skills to evaluate them."
RG: What are the negative consequences of neuromyths?
Macdonald and McGrath: Belief in neuromyths among educators is concerning as many of the neuromyths are directly related to student learning and development, and misconceptions among educators could be harmful for student outcomes. For example, if an educator believes the myth that dyslexia is caused by a visual problem that manifests in letter reversals, students who have dyslexia but do not demonstrate letter reversals might not be identified or provided appropriate services. Another harmful consequence of neuromyths is that some educational tools are based on these misconceptions and have limited empirical support. School districts that are unfamiliar with neuromyths may devote limited time and resources to such programs, which could have otherwise been used for evidence-based interventions.
RG: How can these beliefs be countered?
Macdonald and McGrath: We are still brainstorming about what should be next in countering these myths, particularly how to develop training materials and dissemination avenues. Thankfully there are other groups in the US and globally that are also working on this important problem, so there is some good momentum towards addressing it.
In addition, we think it could be useful for schools of education to provide some very basic neuroscience instruction at the undergraduate and graduate levels so that educators would have a basis for evaluating pedagogical approaches that purport to be based in neuroscience. There is a clearly a proliferation of such “brain-based” claims in education, and it is important that educators have foundational skills to evaluate them. One way to provide this introductory content could be by discussing common neuromyths in existing educational psychology courses.
RG: What do you hope the public will take away from your study?
Macdonald and McGrath: We think there are three really important results to take away from our study. First, educators in the US believe many myths related to the brain and learning and some of these myths have implications for their classroom practice. Second, among the non-educators in the sample, the prevalence of neuromyths was strikingly high in the those who reported taking many university courses in neuroscience. Most of these individuals reported receiving their terminal degree in the sciences or social sciences, so it is surprising that they believed so many of the myths. However, the myths they believed were the ones that are related to learning and behavior, not the ones related to the brain. So, we can see evidence of their training in neuroscience, but this training doesn’t necessarily cross disciplinary boundaries to topics that are mainly the purview of psychology or education. Lastly, we were surprised to see that the “classic” neuromyths tend to cluster together, meaning that if you believe one myth, you are more likely to believe others as well.
Source:https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/many-people-believe-myths-about-how-the-brain-works
In this blog, teachers, students and all those who have some kind of interest in the English language will find useful, interesting, curious and funny things to be used in their classes or for their personal enjoyment.
Sunday, March 31, 2019
New neurons keep developing in the human brain until at least our 90s, by Maarten Rikken
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
New neurons keep developing in the human brain until at least our 90s
Image credit djneight.
25th March 2019
by Maarten Rikken
The number of new neurons could one day serve as a biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease progression.
New neurons continue to develop in the human brain up until the age of 90, a new Nature Medicine study has found. Researchers analyzed tissue samples from 58 participants and found that, although age does slow development, adults continue to develop new neurons – called adult neurogenesis – in the hippocampus. However, people suffering from Alzheimer’s disease showed a sharp decrease in the development of new neurons. Researchers hope that finding a non-invasive way to detect the number of new immature neurons in living individuals could one day be used as a biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease progression.
We spoke to author Maria Llorens-Martín about the work.
ResearchGate: What motivated this study?
Maria Llorens-Martín: We wanted to study adult hippocampal neurogenesis – the development of new neurons in the hippocampus – in humans as they age. In particular, we wanted to understand the different stages of the process and how they were altered in Alzheimer´s disease (AD) patients.
RG: Can you tell us briefly what you discovered?
Llorens-Martín: We found that new neurons develop in our dentate gyrus – a part of the hippocampus – at least until we are in our 90s. Also, that certain methodologies are critical to be able to detect the markers of adult hippocampal neurogenesis in the human brain. And that adult hippocampal neurogenesis is dramatically impaired in AD patients.
RG: What does the ability to develop new neurons do for us as we age?
Llorens-Martín: Studies in mice have revealed that newborn neurons in the dentate gyrus are crucial for processing certain types of memory. The generation of new neurons greatly increases the plasticity of the hippocampal circuit. Moreover, specifically during aging, newly generated neurons contribute to the so-called neurogenic reserve. In other words, it means that they constitute a kind of reserve of plasticity that our brains can use at advanced ages.
RG: Where did the belief that older adults don’t develop new neurons come from?
Llorens-Martín: As far as we know, most of the neurons present in our brains do not undergo regeneration during our lifetime. Thus, the hippocampus is one of the few exceptions. This has been clearly demonstrated in rodents and other species of mammals. Previous reports indicated that the process also occurred in humans. However, a paper last year reported that the authors failed to detect markers of immature neurons in the adult human hippocampus.
RG: Why do you think their results differed to yours?
Llorens-Martín: Our study shows that methodology is critical in showing neurogenesis in human hippocampal tissue. By using the same brain samples but processed in different ways we found that neurogenesis is either abundant, rare, or it does not exist at all. But the cells are there; it is just that we were unable to detect them.
RG: Can you describe the conditions that can prevent the brain from developing new neurons?
Llorens-Martín: It has been demonstrated that only some so-called permissive environments are suitable for the generation of new neurons in adult brains. These environments have very specific characteristics (special vasculature, glial cells, extracellular matrix, etc.). I believe there is a need, in some areas of the brain, for principal neurons to be stable in terms of cell replacement. Although we still have so much to learn about where and how the memory is “physically stored” in our brains. In my personal opinion, it is possible that different forms of plasticity, either the generation of new neurons (as it occurs in the dentate gyrus) or the remodeling of synaptic connections (that occurs in most of brain areas) contribute differently to memory storage, and all these phenomena are probably required for a proper memory storage.
RG: What do your findings mean for our understanding of Alzheimer's?
Llorens-Martín: Our results demonstrate that adult neurogenesis drops remarkably at early stages of the disease, even before the dentate gyrus is altered by the presence of Amyloid Beta and Phosphorylated Tau. Thus, if we could detect the levels of adult neurogenesis in living individuals by non-invasive methods, this decrease might turn into a relevant biomarker of the disease progression. Moreover, if these neurons are actually important for memory processing in human beings, and we could reverse the decrease that takes place at these initial stages, we may prevent or slow down some aspects of the reduced neural plasticity observed in AD patients.
RG: What can people do to help with your research?
Llorens-Martín: Yes, I would like to emphasize that this work has been possible thanks to the generosity of donors and families. And I would like to remark how important it is to donate our brains; this is, by now, one of the few ways researchers can investigate how the human brain works. It doesn’t matter if we are neurologically healthy or not, our brains are really important for research. They are a treasure indeed.
Source:https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/new-neurons-keep-developing-in-the-human-brain-until-at-least-our-90s
New neurons keep developing in the human brain until at least our 90s
Image credit djneight.
25th March 2019
by Maarten Rikken
The number of new neurons could one day serve as a biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease progression.
New neurons continue to develop in the human brain up until the age of 90, a new Nature Medicine study has found. Researchers analyzed tissue samples from 58 participants and found that, although age does slow development, adults continue to develop new neurons – called adult neurogenesis – in the hippocampus. However, people suffering from Alzheimer’s disease showed a sharp decrease in the development of new neurons. Researchers hope that finding a non-invasive way to detect the number of new immature neurons in living individuals could one day be used as a biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease progression.
We spoke to author Maria Llorens-Martín about the work.
ResearchGate: What motivated this study?
Maria Llorens-Martín: We wanted to study adult hippocampal neurogenesis – the development of new neurons in the hippocampus – in humans as they age. In particular, we wanted to understand the different stages of the process and how they were altered in Alzheimer´s disease (AD) patients.
RG: Can you tell us briefly what you discovered?
Llorens-Martín: We found that new neurons develop in our dentate gyrus – a part of the hippocampus – at least until we are in our 90s. Also, that certain methodologies are critical to be able to detect the markers of adult hippocampal neurogenesis in the human brain. And that adult hippocampal neurogenesis is dramatically impaired in AD patients.
RG: What does the ability to develop new neurons do for us as we age?
Llorens-Martín: Studies in mice have revealed that newborn neurons in the dentate gyrus are crucial for processing certain types of memory. The generation of new neurons greatly increases the plasticity of the hippocampal circuit. Moreover, specifically during aging, newly generated neurons contribute to the so-called neurogenic reserve. In other words, it means that they constitute a kind of reserve of plasticity that our brains can use at advanced ages.
RG: Where did the belief that older adults don’t develop new neurons come from?
Llorens-Martín: As far as we know, most of the neurons present in our brains do not undergo regeneration during our lifetime. Thus, the hippocampus is one of the few exceptions. This has been clearly demonstrated in rodents and other species of mammals. Previous reports indicated that the process also occurred in humans. However, a paper last year reported that the authors failed to detect markers of immature neurons in the adult human hippocampus.
RG: Why do you think their results differed to yours?
Llorens-Martín: Our study shows that methodology is critical in showing neurogenesis in human hippocampal tissue. By using the same brain samples but processed in different ways we found that neurogenesis is either abundant, rare, or it does not exist at all. But the cells are there; it is just that we were unable to detect them.
RG: Can you describe the conditions that can prevent the brain from developing new neurons?
Llorens-Martín: It has been demonstrated that only some so-called permissive environments are suitable for the generation of new neurons in adult brains. These environments have very specific characteristics (special vasculature, glial cells, extracellular matrix, etc.). I believe there is a need, in some areas of the brain, for principal neurons to be stable in terms of cell replacement. Although we still have so much to learn about where and how the memory is “physically stored” in our brains. In my personal opinion, it is possible that different forms of plasticity, either the generation of new neurons (as it occurs in the dentate gyrus) or the remodeling of synaptic connections (that occurs in most of brain areas) contribute differently to memory storage, and all these phenomena are probably required for a proper memory storage.
RG: What do your findings mean for our understanding of Alzheimer's?
Llorens-Martín: Our results demonstrate that adult neurogenesis drops remarkably at early stages of the disease, even before the dentate gyrus is altered by the presence of Amyloid Beta and Phosphorylated Tau. Thus, if we could detect the levels of adult neurogenesis in living individuals by non-invasive methods, this decrease might turn into a relevant biomarker of the disease progression. Moreover, if these neurons are actually important for memory processing in human beings, and we could reverse the decrease that takes place at these initial stages, we may prevent or slow down some aspects of the reduced neural plasticity observed in AD patients.
RG: What can people do to help with your research?
Llorens-Martín: Yes, I would like to emphasize that this work has been possible thanks to the generosity of donors and families. And I would like to remark how important it is to donate our brains; this is, by now, one of the few ways researchers can investigate how the human brain works. It doesn’t matter if we are neurologically healthy or not, our brains are really important for research. They are a treasure indeed.
Source:https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/new-neurons-keep-developing-in-the-human-brain-until-at-least-our-90s
Cierre del Congreso de la Lengua-Duelo de idiomas: la belleza barroca del español frente al poder de síntesis del inglés, por Ezequiel Viéitez
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Cierre del Congreso de la Lengua
Duelo de idiomas: la belleza barroca del español frente al poder de síntesis del inglés
Como balance final del encuentro en Córdoba, los expertos analizan el capital del castellano y los retos que le plantean la ciencia y la tecnología.
Con aplausos, se llevó a cabo anoche la solemne sesión de clausura, tras cuatro días de debate en torno a la lengua española.
Ezequiel Viéitez
30/03/2019
El castellano viene demorado en sumar (y transmitir) palabras de la ciencia y la tecnología, pero tiene un riquísimo patrimonio en el campo literario y eso lo baña en prestigio. Ese fue uno de los puntos de acuerdo en el VIII Congreso de la Lengua Española, que cerró su telón este sábado en Córdoba.
Lo obvio: Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y otros países tienen inmensos presupuestos para la investigación. De ahí, la respuesta del dialectólogo español Francisco Moreno Fernández, quien da clases en la Universidad de Alcalá: "El enemigo del español no es inglés, sino la pobreza. La mejor estrategia para el español es la del desarrollo de las comunidades hispanohablantes. Mientras llega, hay que intentar que el español o castellano cuente con los mismos recursos con que cuenta el inglés en el ámbito de las tecnologías y ofrecer recursos de calidad para su uso y enseñanza". Llamado de atención para los presupuestos de los ministerios (y exministerios) de Educación, Cultura y Ciencias.
La sesión de clausura fue encabezada por el presidente de la Academia Argentina de Letras, José Luis Moure, el secretario general del VIII CILE y director académico del Instituto Cervantes, Richard Bueno Hudson, el secretario general de la Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española, Francisco Javier Pérez, y el intendente de la Ciudad de Córdoba, Ramón Mestre.
Pero, más allá de (nuestros) problemas regionales en el desarrollo económico y la inversión, ¿hay estructuras en los idiomas que los vuelven más universales? Moreno Fernández, que también es miembro de la Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española, señala: "El inglés posee mecanismos sintácticos que permiten expresar algunos contenidos con un menor número de palabras, como ocurre con las negaciones del tipo not bad (no está mal) o no wonder (no me extraña). Sin embargo, la diferencia principal suele estar en la forma de organizar el discurso, en la cortesía textual, que en español obliga a introducir atenuaciones que en inglés no son frecuentes, como cuando se dice: “Con estas palabras quisiera llamar la atención sobre....”, en vez de decir directamente de qué se trata, o “Le rogaría que no comentara...”. Esto en inglés se suele resolver de forma más directa, aunque no por ello el inglés prescinde de la cortesía".
El secretario de la Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua y licenciado en Letras Hispánicas es el argentino radicado en Estados Unidos Jorge Covarrubias. Explica: “Cuando uno traduce del inglés un texto, siempre la versión en español del mismo texto es más larga, no quiere decir que sea mejor o peor. Pero el inglés tiene una ventaja en su economía". Ejemplo simple y a las apuradas: cheeseburger suma en una sola palabra "hamburguesa con queso". Moreno Fernández: "Las traducciones del inglés al español suelen resultar entre un 10 y un 15 por ciento más largas que el original".
Profesora de posgrado en la Facultad de Lenguas de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba y referente en sociolingüistica, María Teresa Toniolo refuerza que "el inglés va más directo a las cosas, y eso es importante en la comunicación científica, va directo y con precisión a detenerse en lo que quiere comunicar. No da rodeos".
Profesora de posgrado en la Facultad de Lenguas de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba y referente en sociolingüística, María Teresa Toniolo refuerza que "el inglés va más directo a las cosas, y eso es importante en la comunicación científica, va directo y con precisión a detenerse en lo que quiere comunicar. No da rodeos", mientras que el castellano es "más simbólico y analítico". Por eso, resulta más sencillo estudiar inglés que español para alguien que no tiene ninguno de esos dos idiomas como lengua materna. Agrega: "El castellano tiende a desglosar, es más moroso y amoroso, se detiene en el ámbito que lo rodea, en las relaciones interpersonales. Se usan más adjetivos y requiere más 'modificadores', como son las preposiciones". Otro ejemplo al paso: Río de la Plata versus la versión con que se lo definió en el Reino Unido, River Plate. "En este ejemplo, se economiza la preposición y el artículo", señala Toniolo. La lengua gringa no diferencia entre "usted" y "vos". You lo resuelve todo. Menos vueltas.
Se introduce en el debate el poeta y cuentista José María Merino, miembro de la Real Academia Española, quien señala que el castellano es "más metafórico" naturalmente, se extiende más en la descripción. "Yo creo que su riqueza es una cultura literaria extraordinaria. Y aquí en América está claro. Neruda, Vallejo, Cortázar, Borges, Gabriela Mistral, Rosalía de Castro, tantos...", recalca. Incorpora una peculiaridad agradable, casi poética: "Efectivamente, tal vez el inglés para los negocios puros y estrictos sea más adecuado, porque es más breve, más sintético, etcétera... Ahora, el español tiene más musicalidad y distintas musicalidades en diferentes regiones de América". De todos modos, advierte que "los hispanoparlantes no somos concientes del patrimonio cultural que antes mencionaba de nuestra lengua", en referencia a la gran diversidad (incluso geográfica) en narrativa y poesía de la lengua castellana, que supo cosechar once premios Nobel de Literatura. Otra vez volvemos al tema central: educación, formación y más educación.
Transformar al español en un idioma más pragmático no parece una posibilidad de potenciarlo.
Transformar al español en un idioma más pragmático no parece una posibilidad de potenciarlo. Explica Merino: "Suelo decirle a los jóvenes que con cada palabra que perdéis, quedáis más indefensos. Porque estáis creyendo que si una palabra sirve para decir diez cosas es mejor. Pues no. Si hay diez palabras que pueden decir diez cosas, utiliza las diez palabras". Con la economía, también se pueden perder matices. "La palabra no es solo un mero sistema de comunicación -continúa-. Es un sistema de relación y defensa en la vida. Una persona que hable con más riqueza que vosotros, consigue ese puesto de trabajo que queréis."
El "prestigio del idioma" suena a un tema superficial, pero no es menor en un mundo tan fríamente competitivo (y muchas veces, horrorosamente despiadado). En el último Foro de Davos, esa reunión global de hombres recios y elegantes, se presentó el Indice de Poder de las Lenguas, que marca la influencia de cada idioma en el mundo y en los vínculos que se tejen. El español quedó en cuarto lugar, cerca del francés pero lejos del inglés. José Crehueras, presidente del Grupo Planeta, puso en contexto este dato en su presentación en Córdoba. Según la UNESCO, las llamadas industrias creativas (vinculadas a la cultura) generan el 3 por ciento del PBI mundial y emplean al 1 por ciento de la población del planeta. El 40 por ciento de las series que vemos por streaming -sí, es inevitable usar este anglicismo- se basa en novelas, en libros. Entonces, potenciar el patrimonio del castellano (que hablan unas 570 millones de personas en el mundo) puede generar empleo y producción en nuestros países. Y podría abrir nuevos canales para la amada y muy sufrida industria editorial. Sí, esto es globalización pura y dura.
Otro fenómeno, el del mestizaje lingüístico. Mientras que en este punto del planeta usamos el smartphone y whatsappeamos (a este cronista le cuesta guasapear), en Reino Unido ya se ven "bares de tapas", definición originada en el "tapeo" español y trasladada por los turistas británicos. En Estados Unidos, las palabras castellanas ganan cada vez más lugar: el Subte neoyorquino tiene señalizaciones en los dos idiomas y en Miami (y otras localidades del Norte) el español se hace cada vez más fuerte. Siempre y cuando no haya un partidario de Trump cerca.
Una mujer observa muestras de arte y culturales durante la 8a edición del Congreso de la Lengua Española, en Córdoba (Argentina). EFE/ Juan Ignacio Roncoroni
Entre la alarma y el humor, Merino cuida el patrimonio hispánico: "Cuando utilizamos neologismos ingleses para describir cosas que no tienen nombre, como ocurrió con 'tren', enriquecemos el idioma. Y de hecho, ahora se han incorporado muchas palabras al diccionario. Pero cuando sustituimos un término que ya existe en español por otro en inglés, debo decirle que usted acaba de cometer un verbicidio".
Fuente:www.clarin.com (vía Google.com)
Cierre del Congreso de la Lengua
Duelo de idiomas: la belleza barroca del español frente al poder de síntesis del inglés
Como balance final del encuentro en Córdoba, los expertos analizan el capital del castellano y los retos que le plantean la ciencia y la tecnología.
Con aplausos, se llevó a cabo anoche la solemne sesión de clausura, tras cuatro días de debate en torno a la lengua española.
Ezequiel Viéitez
30/03/2019
El castellano viene demorado en sumar (y transmitir) palabras de la ciencia y la tecnología, pero tiene un riquísimo patrimonio en el campo literario y eso lo baña en prestigio. Ese fue uno de los puntos de acuerdo en el VIII Congreso de la Lengua Española, que cerró su telón este sábado en Córdoba.
Lo obvio: Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y otros países tienen inmensos presupuestos para la investigación. De ahí, la respuesta del dialectólogo español Francisco Moreno Fernández, quien da clases en la Universidad de Alcalá: "El enemigo del español no es inglés, sino la pobreza. La mejor estrategia para el español es la del desarrollo de las comunidades hispanohablantes. Mientras llega, hay que intentar que el español o castellano cuente con los mismos recursos con que cuenta el inglés en el ámbito de las tecnologías y ofrecer recursos de calidad para su uso y enseñanza". Llamado de atención para los presupuestos de los ministerios (y exministerios) de Educación, Cultura y Ciencias.
La sesión de clausura fue encabezada por el presidente de la Academia Argentina de Letras, José Luis Moure, el secretario general del VIII CILE y director académico del Instituto Cervantes, Richard Bueno Hudson, el secretario general de la Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española, Francisco Javier Pérez, y el intendente de la Ciudad de Córdoba, Ramón Mestre.
Pero, más allá de (nuestros) problemas regionales en el desarrollo económico y la inversión, ¿hay estructuras en los idiomas que los vuelven más universales? Moreno Fernández, que también es miembro de la Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española, señala: "El inglés posee mecanismos sintácticos que permiten expresar algunos contenidos con un menor número de palabras, como ocurre con las negaciones del tipo not bad (no está mal) o no wonder (no me extraña). Sin embargo, la diferencia principal suele estar en la forma de organizar el discurso, en la cortesía textual, que en español obliga a introducir atenuaciones que en inglés no son frecuentes, como cuando se dice: “Con estas palabras quisiera llamar la atención sobre....”, en vez de decir directamente de qué se trata, o “Le rogaría que no comentara...”. Esto en inglés se suele resolver de forma más directa, aunque no por ello el inglés prescinde de la cortesía".
El secretario de la Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua y licenciado en Letras Hispánicas es el argentino radicado en Estados Unidos Jorge Covarrubias. Explica: “Cuando uno traduce del inglés un texto, siempre la versión en español del mismo texto es más larga, no quiere decir que sea mejor o peor. Pero el inglés tiene una ventaja en su economía". Ejemplo simple y a las apuradas: cheeseburger suma en una sola palabra "hamburguesa con queso". Moreno Fernández: "Las traducciones del inglés al español suelen resultar entre un 10 y un 15 por ciento más largas que el original".
Profesora de posgrado en la Facultad de Lenguas de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba y referente en sociolingüistica, María Teresa Toniolo refuerza que "el inglés va más directo a las cosas, y eso es importante en la comunicación científica, va directo y con precisión a detenerse en lo que quiere comunicar. No da rodeos".
Profesora de posgrado en la Facultad de Lenguas de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba y referente en sociolingüística, María Teresa Toniolo refuerza que "el inglés va más directo a las cosas, y eso es importante en la comunicación científica, va directo y con precisión a detenerse en lo que quiere comunicar. No da rodeos", mientras que el castellano es "más simbólico y analítico". Por eso, resulta más sencillo estudiar inglés que español para alguien que no tiene ninguno de esos dos idiomas como lengua materna. Agrega: "El castellano tiende a desglosar, es más moroso y amoroso, se detiene en el ámbito que lo rodea, en las relaciones interpersonales. Se usan más adjetivos y requiere más 'modificadores', como son las preposiciones". Otro ejemplo al paso: Río de la Plata versus la versión con que se lo definió en el Reino Unido, River Plate. "En este ejemplo, se economiza la preposición y el artículo", señala Toniolo. La lengua gringa no diferencia entre "usted" y "vos". You lo resuelve todo. Menos vueltas.
Se introduce en el debate el poeta y cuentista José María Merino, miembro de la Real Academia Española, quien señala que el castellano es "más metafórico" naturalmente, se extiende más en la descripción. "Yo creo que su riqueza es una cultura literaria extraordinaria. Y aquí en América está claro. Neruda, Vallejo, Cortázar, Borges, Gabriela Mistral, Rosalía de Castro, tantos...", recalca. Incorpora una peculiaridad agradable, casi poética: "Efectivamente, tal vez el inglés para los negocios puros y estrictos sea más adecuado, porque es más breve, más sintético, etcétera... Ahora, el español tiene más musicalidad y distintas musicalidades en diferentes regiones de América". De todos modos, advierte que "los hispanoparlantes no somos concientes del patrimonio cultural que antes mencionaba de nuestra lengua", en referencia a la gran diversidad (incluso geográfica) en narrativa y poesía de la lengua castellana, que supo cosechar once premios Nobel de Literatura. Otra vez volvemos al tema central: educación, formación y más educación.
Transformar al español en un idioma más pragmático no parece una posibilidad de potenciarlo.
Transformar al español en un idioma más pragmático no parece una posibilidad de potenciarlo. Explica Merino: "Suelo decirle a los jóvenes que con cada palabra que perdéis, quedáis más indefensos. Porque estáis creyendo que si una palabra sirve para decir diez cosas es mejor. Pues no. Si hay diez palabras que pueden decir diez cosas, utiliza las diez palabras". Con la economía, también se pueden perder matices. "La palabra no es solo un mero sistema de comunicación -continúa-. Es un sistema de relación y defensa en la vida. Una persona que hable con más riqueza que vosotros, consigue ese puesto de trabajo que queréis."
El "prestigio del idioma" suena a un tema superficial, pero no es menor en un mundo tan fríamente competitivo (y muchas veces, horrorosamente despiadado). En el último Foro de Davos, esa reunión global de hombres recios y elegantes, se presentó el Indice de Poder de las Lenguas, que marca la influencia de cada idioma en el mundo y en los vínculos que se tejen. El español quedó en cuarto lugar, cerca del francés pero lejos del inglés. José Crehueras, presidente del Grupo Planeta, puso en contexto este dato en su presentación en Córdoba. Según la UNESCO, las llamadas industrias creativas (vinculadas a la cultura) generan el 3 por ciento del PBI mundial y emplean al 1 por ciento de la población del planeta. El 40 por ciento de las series que vemos por streaming -sí, es inevitable usar este anglicismo- se basa en novelas, en libros. Entonces, potenciar el patrimonio del castellano (que hablan unas 570 millones de personas en el mundo) puede generar empleo y producción en nuestros países. Y podría abrir nuevos canales para la amada y muy sufrida industria editorial. Sí, esto es globalización pura y dura.
Otro fenómeno, el del mestizaje lingüístico. Mientras que en este punto del planeta usamos el smartphone y whatsappeamos (a este cronista le cuesta guasapear), en Reino Unido ya se ven "bares de tapas", definición originada en el "tapeo" español y trasladada por los turistas británicos. En Estados Unidos, las palabras castellanas ganan cada vez más lugar: el Subte neoyorquino tiene señalizaciones en los dos idiomas y en Miami (y otras localidades del Norte) el español se hace cada vez más fuerte. Siempre y cuando no haya un partidario de Trump cerca.
Una mujer observa muestras de arte y culturales durante la 8a edición del Congreso de la Lengua Española, en Córdoba (Argentina). EFE/ Juan Ignacio Roncoroni
Entre la alarma y el humor, Merino cuida el patrimonio hispánico: "Cuando utilizamos neologismos ingleses para describir cosas que no tienen nombre, como ocurrió con 'tren', enriquecemos el idioma. Y de hecho, ahora se han incorporado muchas palabras al diccionario. Pero cuando sustituimos un término que ya existe en español por otro en inglés, debo decirle que usted acaba de cometer un verbicidio".
Fuente:www.clarin.com (vía Google.com)
OPINIÓN | ACTUALIDAD POLÍTICA-Por suerte, vino el rey, por Graciela Guadalupe
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
OPINIÓN | COLUMNISTAS | ACTUALIDAD POLÍTICA
Por suerte, vino el rey
Graciela Guadalupe
31 de Marzo de 2019
"Vuestro José Luis Borges, nuestro también, por universal"- Del rey Felipe VI, al hablar en el Congreso de la Lengua
Lavagna chancletea, los diputados de Cambiemos viajan a lo loco, Guillermo Moreno pide a los presos K que dejen de botonear. El presidente de la Corte dice que la Justicia es menos creíble que strudel de paté de foie y Scioli se vuelve a lanzar como precandidato (al menos él cree en él).
Cristina viajó a su verdadero lugar en el mundo, Cuba; Maradona pobló Cuba; dos iraníes con pasaportes truchos se nos colaron por Ezeiza, y Carrió no habla con el ministro Garavano porque no habla "con imbéciles".
El dólar juega a la cama elástica a pesar de que Dujovne pidió al FMI cambiar los flejes del camastro para que no rebote. Un changarín inventó una historia de la falsa devolución de un dinero a un empresario inexistente; la inflación de febrero fue del 3,8%, la pobreza del último semestre, del 32%, y el desempleo, del 9,1% en 2018.
Un policía pidió por carta a un comercio un kilo de helado diario como contribución (acá lo novedoso es la carta, no el mangazo); Di María quedó afuera; Messi, adentro, y la selección, vaya a saber dónde (o sea, sin mayores novedades).
Aerolíneas amenazó con parar vuelos aprovechando el fin de semana largo que no es tal y se prepara para ungir como director al gremialista más duro de la empresa, y empezaron a correr rumores de embarazo de Juliana Awada, que desmintieron en Gobierno y también Morla, el abogado de Maradona.
En el Congreso de la Lengua , el presidente Macri dijo: "No nos olvidemos de que la primer [sic] vuelta al mundo, una de las grandes gestas de la humanidad, fue una hazaña española". Y el rey de España, Felipe VI, nos elogió por nuestro "José [sic] Luis Borges, que también es de ellos, por su universalidad. Nota: en la guía telefónica Páginas Blancas figura un solo Borges con ese nombre, que vive en Merlo y que es probable que nunca haya publicado un libro.
Y una encuesta dice que los argentinos descendimos 18 lugares en el ranking mundial de felicidad en el último año. Quedamos en el puesto 47º entre 156 naciones evaluadas. La más feliz, nuevamente, fue Finlandia.
A ver, señores finlandeses: los argentinos no seremos felices, pero no nos aburrimos nunca. Acá, si hay un problema, es uno más y, si no hay, lo inventamos. Los argentinos somos mayormente insaciables, particularmente díscolos, soberbios, ciclotímicos, alborotados, chamuyeros. Y contagiosos. Si no, pregúntenle a Felipe.
Fuente:https://www.lanacion.com.ar/opinion/columnistas/por-suerte-vino-el-rey-nid2233817
OPINIÓN | COLUMNISTAS | ACTUALIDAD POLÍTICA
Por suerte, vino el rey
Graciela Guadalupe
31 de Marzo de 2019
"Vuestro José Luis Borges, nuestro también, por universal"- Del rey Felipe VI, al hablar en el Congreso de la Lengua
Lavagna chancletea, los diputados de Cambiemos viajan a lo loco, Guillermo Moreno pide a los presos K que dejen de botonear. El presidente de la Corte dice que la Justicia es menos creíble que strudel de paté de foie y Scioli se vuelve a lanzar como precandidato (al menos él cree en él).
Cristina viajó a su verdadero lugar en el mundo, Cuba; Maradona pobló Cuba; dos iraníes con pasaportes truchos se nos colaron por Ezeiza, y Carrió no habla con el ministro Garavano porque no habla "con imbéciles".
El dólar juega a la cama elástica a pesar de que Dujovne pidió al FMI cambiar los flejes del camastro para que no rebote. Un changarín inventó una historia de la falsa devolución de un dinero a un empresario inexistente; la inflación de febrero fue del 3,8%, la pobreza del último semestre, del 32%, y el desempleo, del 9,1% en 2018.
Un policía pidió por carta a un comercio un kilo de helado diario como contribución (acá lo novedoso es la carta, no el mangazo); Di María quedó afuera; Messi, adentro, y la selección, vaya a saber dónde (o sea, sin mayores novedades).
Aerolíneas amenazó con parar vuelos aprovechando el fin de semana largo que no es tal y se prepara para ungir como director al gremialista más duro de la empresa, y empezaron a correr rumores de embarazo de Juliana Awada, que desmintieron en Gobierno y también Morla, el abogado de Maradona.
En el Congreso de la Lengua , el presidente Macri dijo: "No nos olvidemos de que la primer [sic] vuelta al mundo, una de las grandes gestas de la humanidad, fue una hazaña española". Y el rey de España, Felipe VI, nos elogió por nuestro "José [sic] Luis Borges, que también es de ellos, por su universalidad. Nota: en la guía telefónica Páginas Blancas figura un solo Borges con ese nombre, que vive en Merlo y que es probable que nunca haya publicado un libro.
Y una encuesta dice que los argentinos descendimos 18 lugares en el ranking mundial de felicidad en el último año. Quedamos en el puesto 47º entre 156 naciones evaluadas. La más feliz, nuevamente, fue Finlandia.
A ver, señores finlandeses: los argentinos no seremos felices, pero no nos aburrimos nunca. Acá, si hay un problema, es uno más y, si no hay, lo inventamos. Los argentinos somos mayormente insaciables, particularmente díscolos, soberbios, ciclotímicos, alborotados, chamuyeros. Y contagiosos. Si no, pregúntenle a Felipe.
Fuente:https://www.lanacion.com.ar/opinion/columnistas/por-suerte-vino-el-rey-nid2233817
OPINIÓN | POBREZA-La pobreza que supimos conseguir, por Pablo Sirvén
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
OPINIÓN | COLUMNISTAS | POBREZA
La pobreza que supimos conseguir
Pablo Sirvén
31 de Marzo de 2019
Se naturalizó en la Argentina una infame inmoralidad en un país supuestamente rico: la pobreza .
Sí, se naturalizó, no hay vuelta que darle. Cada vez que se conoce un nuevo índice hay una suerte de "acting" colectivo, bien apuntalado por un show televisivo de caras compungidas y de reprochadores profesionales rasgándose las vestiduras. El parloteo y los videographs en llamas duran un rato. Después, vuelta de página y a ver por qué el Papa no se deja besar el anillo o si Emilio Disi salió con Iliana Calabró. Nuestra cosmogonía mediática es sumamente ecléctica. E insustancial. Prueba de que la pobreza no solo ha calado en los bolsillos.
La anomalía es mucho más grave que un mal gobierno. Si fuera únicamente eso, la tarea no sería tan difícil para el votante. Solo se trataría de apuntar mejor a la hora de sufragar. El presidente Mauricio Macri suele decir que los problemas de este país comenzaron hace setenta años. Reconociendo que pueda tener razón en los orígenes profundos, lo cierto es que la Argentina se asomaba todavía a la década del setenta del siglo pasado con índices sociales bastante razonables. Todo se empezó a descalabrar fuertemente desde el Rodrigazo en adelante, a mediados de 1975, de eso hace 44 años, durante el gobierno de Isabel Perón, cuando una megadevaluación terminó desatando la primera de varias hiperinflaciones que sufrimos en las décadas siguientes.
De aquella época hasta hoy mismo han pasado por el máximo poder de la república todo tipo de expresiones democráticas y de facto en un abanico ideológico tan diversificado que comprende desde dictaduras hasta gobiernos hegemónicos democráticos como lo fueron el menemismo y el kirchnerismo, que no supieron dar en la tecla ni desde un extremo neoliberal ni desde la otra punta neobolivariana, aun contando con mayorías plenas para hacerlo. Entremedio y después, gobiernos más condicionados como el de Raúl Alfonsín, la Alianza, el interinato de Duhalde y la actual gestión de Cambiemos, con todos los matices que exhibieron unos y otros, tampoco encontraron la solución. La pregunta crucial es si realmente la buscaron o solo se dedicaron a administrar el día a día con efectismos pasajeros para dar momentáneas sensaciones de alivio.
La Argentina no genera puestos de calidad en cantidad desde hace, al menos, un cuarto de siglo. Durante el menemismo (1989-1999), se consolidó una pobreza estructural que, salvo pequeñísimas treguas, no cesa de crecer. Debería ser el tema excluyente a resolver, sin chicanas y sin grietas, porque nos compete a todos. Pero por ahora solo ha servido para esgrimas verbales de poca monta.
Queda pendiente, como siempre, examinar de verdad qué tipo de falencias tiene nuestra matriz productiva en un mundo laboral cada vez más complejo y en plena transformación, en vez de seguir rompiendo por desidia o desaprensión lo poco de bueno que va quedando. Y así como el actual gobierno puso un bienvenido énfasis en obras públicas necesarias (cloacas, caminos, obras hidráulicas, metrobuses, etcétera), falta recuperar algo todavía más indispensable para el desarrollo que hemos ido deteriorando de manera suicida: la educación. Ningún gobierno podrá revertir en serio la pobreza si no invierte recursos y atención permanente sobre ella. Bastaría como recordatorio de nuestra criminal inacción en la materia solo este dato atroz: casi la mitad de los chicos de este país son pobres. Es esta la principal y más grave hipoteca que pesa sobre el futuro argentino.
Un pequeño paso ha dado este gobierno respecto del anterior al reconocer que el problema existe. Pero no explícita cómo lo resolverá, más allá de consignas genéricas y muy repetidas que ya suenan vacías e insuficientes ("este es el camino", "es por acá") . Tampoco satisface que en lo discursivo todo empiece y termine en el déficit fiscal, un tema macro necesario de corregir, pero que por sí mismo no soluciona todos los problemas. Peor aún, en el corto plazo tiende a agravarlos al deprimir la fuerza laboral y del consumo.
Hasta última hora del miércoles, Macri iba a encabezar en la Casa Rosada el anuncio del aumento de la pobreza al 32%. Luego se decidió preservarlo del mal trago y se resolvió que la conferencia de prensa fuera desde el Ministerio de Desarrollo Social, a cargo de su titular, Carolina Stanley, acompañada por el ministro de Producción, Dante Sica.
"Hoy es un día triste", se sinceró la funcionaria, que ya tenía plena conciencia de esos guarismos cuando en septiembre del año pasado comenzó a reforzar las partidas sociales y el abastecimiento a comedores comunitarios. Tampoco fue casual que se adelantara el aumento del 46% a la AUH y el refuerzo al salario mínimo, mientras los jubilados empiezan a recuperar parte de lo perdido en estos meses, gracias a la aplicación de la movilidad. Ciertos índices económicos empiezan a mejorar muy tibiamente, pero la inflación, que hasta ahora no ha dado signos de mejora, augura que el próximo índice de pobreza, que se conocerá durante el segundo semestre, en coincidencia con el último tramo de la campaña electoral, no cederá. Otra pésima noticia para un gobierno que desea ser reelegido, que se había fijado como meta la "pobreza cero" y que pidió ser evaluado por sus progresos en ese ítem.
psirven@lanacion.com.arTwitter: @psirven
Fuente:https://www.lanacion.com.ar/opinion/columnistas/la-pobreza-que-supimos-conseguir-nid2233834
OPINIÓN | COLUMNISTAS | POBREZA
La pobreza que supimos conseguir
Pablo Sirvén
31 de Marzo de 2019
Se naturalizó en la Argentina una infame inmoralidad en un país supuestamente rico: la pobreza .
Sí, se naturalizó, no hay vuelta que darle. Cada vez que se conoce un nuevo índice hay una suerte de "acting" colectivo, bien apuntalado por un show televisivo de caras compungidas y de reprochadores profesionales rasgándose las vestiduras. El parloteo y los videographs en llamas duran un rato. Después, vuelta de página y a ver por qué el Papa no se deja besar el anillo o si Emilio Disi salió con Iliana Calabró. Nuestra cosmogonía mediática es sumamente ecléctica. E insustancial. Prueba de que la pobreza no solo ha calado en los bolsillos.
La anomalía es mucho más grave que un mal gobierno. Si fuera únicamente eso, la tarea no sería tan difícil para el votante. Solo se trataría de apuntar mejor a la hora de sufragar. El presidente Mauricio Macri suele decir que los problemas de este país comenzaron hace setenta años. Reconociendo que pueda tener razón en los orígenes profundos, lo cierto es que la Argentina se asomaba todavía a la década del setenta del siglo pasado con índices sociales bastante razonables. Todo se empezó a descalabrar fuertemente desde el Rodrigazo en adelante, a mediados de 1975, de eso hace 44 años, durante el gobierno de Isabel Perón, cuando una megadevaluación terminó desatando la primera de varias hiperinflaciones que sufrimos en las décadas siguientes.
De aquella época hasta hoy mismo han pasado por el máximo poder de la república todo tipo de expresiones democráticas y de facto en un abanico ideológico tan diversificado que comprende desde dictaduras hasta gobiernos hegemónicos democráticos como lo fueron el menemismo y el kirchnerismo, que no supieron dar en la tecla ni desde un extremo neoliberal ni desde la otra punta neobolivariana, aun contando con mayorías plenas para hacerlo. Entremedio y después, gobiernos más condicionados como el de Raúl Alfonsín, la Alianza, el interinato de Duhalde y la actual gestión de Cambiemos, con todos los matices que exhibieron unos y otros, tampoco encontraron la solución. La pregunta crucial es si realmente la buscaron o solo se dedicaron a administrar el día a día con efectismos pasajeros para dar momentáneas sensaciones de alivio.
La Argentina no genera puestos de calidad en cantidad desde hace, al menos, un cuarto de siglo. Durante el menemismo (1989-1999), se consolidó una pobreza estructural que, salvo pequeñísimas treguas, no cesa de crecer. Debería ser el tema excluyente a resolver, sin chicanas y sin grietas, porque nos compete a todos. Pero por ahora solo ha servido para esgrimas verbales de poca monta.
Queda pendiente, como siempre, examinar de verdad qué tipo de falencias tiene nuestra matriz productiva en un mundo laboral cada vez más complejo y en plena transformación, en vez de seguir rompiendo por desidia o desaprensión lo poco de bueno que va quedando. Y así como el actual gobierno puso un bienvenido énfasis en obras públicas necesarias (cloacas, caminos, obras hidráulicas, metrobuses, etcétera), falta recuperar algo todavía más indispensable para el desarrollo que hemos ido deteriorando de manera suicida: la educación. Ningún gobierno podrá revertir en serio la pobreza si no invierte recursos y atención permanente sobre ella. Bastaría como recordatorio de nuestra criminal inacción en la materia solo este dato atroz: casi la mitad de los chicos de este país son pobres. Es esta la principal y más grave hipoteca que pesa sobre el futuro argentino.
Un pequeño paso ha dado este gobierno respecto del anterior al reconocer que el problema existe. Pero no explícita cómo lo resolverá, más allá de consignas genéricas y muy repetidas que ya suenan vacías e insuficientes ("este es el camino", "es por acá") . Tampoco satisface que en lo discursivo todo empiece y termine en el déficit fiscal, un tema macro necesario de corregir, pero que por sí mismo no soluciona todos los problemas. Peor aún, en el corto plazo tiende a agravarlos al deprimir la fuerza laboral y del consumo.
Hasta última hora del miércoles, Macri iba a encabezar en la Casa Rosada el anuncio del aumento de la pobreza al 32%. Luego se decidió preservarlo del mal trago y se resolvió que la conferencia de prensa fuera desde el Ministerio de Desarrollo Social, a cargo de su titular, Carolina Stanley, acompañada por el ministro de Producción, Dante Sica.
"Hoy es un día triste", se sinceró la funcionaria, que ya tenía plena conciencia de esos guarismos cuando en septiembre del año pasado comenzó a reforzar las partidas sociales y el abastecimiento a comedores comunitarios. Tampoco fue casual que se adelantara el aumento del 46% a la AUH y el refuerzo al salario mínimo, mientras los jubilados empiezan a recuperar parte de lo perdido en estos meses, gracias a la aplicación de la movilidad. Ciertos índices económicos empiezan a mejorar muy tibiamente, pero la inflación, que hasta ahora no ha dado signos de mejora, augura que el próximo índice de pobreza, que se conocerá durante el segundo semestre, en coincidencia con el último tramo de la campaña electoral, no cederá. Otra pésima noticia para un gobierno que desea ser reelegido, que se había fijado como meta la "pobreza cero" y que pidió ser evaluado por sus progresos en ese ítem.
psirven@lanacion.com.arTwitter: @psirven
Fuente:https://www.lanacion.com.ar/opinion/columnistas/la-pobreza-que-supimos-conseguir-nid2233834
CULTURA | CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE LA LENGUA ESPAÑOLA-Una discusión saludable sobre el futuro y las tensiones del lenguaje,por Víctor Hugo Ghitta
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
CULTURA | CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE LA LENGUA ESPAÑOLA
Una discusión saludable sobre el futuro y las tensiones del lenguaje
Córdoba, escenario de un debate histórico Crédito: Diego Lima
El Congreso de la Lengua concluyó ayer en Córdoba; José Luis Moure, presidente de la Academia Argentina de Letras, abogó en el discurso de cierre por el cultivo de la unidad de la lengua
Víctor Hugo Ghitta
31 de Marzo de 2019
CÓRDOBA-. En su libro El sistema de la moda, Roland Barthes se ocupa abundantemente de estudiar lo que él mismo llama un sistema de signos distinto del lenguaje hablado o escrito. Al calor de ideas de escritores como Balzac y Proust, según confiesa en una de las entrevistas de El grano de la voz, procura entender cómo construye sentido la indumentaria. Acaso suene a capricho que se piense en estas cosas cuando se está en medio de este VIII Congreso Internacional de la Lengua , pero quizás el ejemplo ayude. Por lo pronto, Barthes era semiólogo, de modo que se pasó una vida entera leyendo signos e investigando el funcionamiento de los sistemas de significaciones. La cita viene a cuento porque, como sabemos, los códigos de vestimenta dan testimonio tanto de personas individuales como de instituciones, transmiten valores simbólicos y develan modos de percibir el mundo.
Pero expliquemos los hechos. La mayoría de los invitados a esta gran cita de la palabra en español, que concluyó ayer, recibieron una indicación muy precisa de sus anfitriones: el código de vestimenta requería traje oscuro (gris o azul) y corbata. Solo Joaquín Sabina desoyó esa recomendación, que tal vez ni siquiera le fue dada a sabiendas de que jamás la respetaría, y subió al escenario del Teatro del Libertador San Martín con una campera de cuero negra. El protocolo es forma.
Lo que acaso importa de esta escena, a riesgo de cometer una liviandad, es entender si ese signo de la indumentaria dice algo sobre la disposición que tienen académicos que abrazan esa fe en las formalidades (y la lengua es forma) a abrirse a las transformaciones lingüísticas que propone con vértigo a veces excesivo, y otras impulsado por modas fugaces o afiebradas ideologías, el presente acuciante. Cierto prejuicio tiende a hacernos pensar, quizá apresuradamente, que esa disposición es poca, pero las cosas no son tan sencillas. Lo prueba un episodio de algún modo insólito y bastante conocido que sucedió no hace mucho en la sección de consultas online del sitio oficial de la RAE, cuando un usuario dejó esta pregunta risueña e intencionada:
"La siguiente es una duda muy frecuente entre nosotros los usuarios de Twitter -escribió-. Quisiéramos saber si 'Te invito a mi casa a ver Netflix' se escribe con G o con J".
La respuesta de la Real Academia Española fue inmediata: "En cualquiera de sus acepciones, en el verbo «coger» se escriben con «g» las formas en que el sonido [j] va ante «e», «i»: coger, cogía; y con «j» las formas en que ese sonido va ante «a», «o»: cojo, cojamos". Se precisa de un humor muy fino y de una buena comprensión de las audiencias digitales para dar esa respuesta. No fue la primera vez que los responsables de esa sección acudieron a la ironía con semejante desfachatez.
Predicar en tierra de infieles
Sucede a veces que los medios, presas de la ansiedad periodística, fatigan al oyente o al lector anticipando hechos que finalmente no ocurren. El ansiado debate acerca de las derivaciones que puede alcanzar el lenguaje inclusivo tuvo una presencia modesta. Surgió apenas en algunas ponencias, como la de Luisa Valenzuela, por ejemplo, que citó primero a Lacan cuando este señaló que la mujer está fuera del lenguaje y después a George Steiner, quien dijo que los griegos habían podido dedicarse a la filosofía porque las mujeres se ocupaban de las necesidades cotidianas. "Muchos aún hoy parecerían temerle al lenguaje inclusivo -advirtió-, como si simbólicamente amenazara la supremacía masculina y, quizá, hasta al propio monoteísmo".
En el encuentro de clausura, José Luis Moure, presidente de la Academia de Letras, dejó sentada en una pieza memorable, por si sola un tributo a la lengua en español, una posición firme, aunque por momentos tocada por la resignación y el desencanto. Abogó por la preservación de la unidad de la lengua mediante el cultivo de la modélica o ejemplar, señaló que es la escuela la que debe esforzarse en su ejercicio ante la hostilización que sufre por las variedades de naturaleza oral hoy predominantes y precisó que no es posible ni deseable que las academias tomen una custodia prescriptiva o condenatoria de los supuestos desvíos de la lengua, al estilo de predicadores en tierra de infieles.
"La administración de la lengua común no debería salir de su morada natural, que es la mente humana -dijo a modo de pesarosa conclusión-. Lo que hoy es curiosidad lúdica o inquietud científica -la historia lo sabe- mañana puede ser una tragedia".
Antonio Seguí: el maestro y sus personajes
La muestra de Antonio Seguí
Curada por Clelia Taricco, la muestra "Antonio Seguí. Caligrafía. 30 años de escritura" es una selección de pinturas traídas desde Francia, donde reside el artista cordobés desde la década del 60, especialmente elegidas en el marco del VIII Congreso Internacional de la Lengua Española. La muestra, que abarca desde los años 70 hasta el presente, ocupa la planta alta del Cabildo de Córdoba. En las salas de planta baja se propondrá "Mirá Seguí", una muestra participativa y lúdica. La muestra sigue hasta el 19 de mayo y es una ocasión particular con el artista que inventó los personajes más reconocibles.
Fuente:https://www.lanacion.com.ar/cultura/una-discusion-saludable-sobre-el-futuro-y-las-tensiones-del-lenguaje-nid2233824
CULTURA | CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE LA LENGUA ESPAÑOLA
Una discusión saludable sobre el futuro y las tensiones del lenguaje
Córdoba, escenario de un debate histórico Crédito: Diego Lima
El Congreso de la Lengua concluyó ayer en Córdoba; José Luis Moure, presidente de la Academia Argentina de Letras, abogó en el discurso de cierre por el cultivo de la unidad de la lengua
Víctor Hugo Ghitta
31 de Marzo de 2019
CÓRDOBA-. En su libro El sistema de la moda, Roland Barthes se ocupa abundantemente de estudiar lo que él mismo llama un sistema de signos distinto del lenguaje hablado o escrito. Al calor de ideas de escritores como Balzac y Proust, según confiesa en una de las entrevistas de El grano de la voz, procura entender cómo construye sentido la indumentaria. Acaso suene a capricho que se piense en estas cosas cuando se está en medio de este VIII Congreso Internacional de la Lengua , pero quizás el ejemplo ayude. Por lo pronto, Barthes era semiólogo, de modo que se pasó una vida entera leyendo signos e investigando el funcionamiento de los sistemas de significaciones. La cita viene a cuento porque, como sabemos, los códigos de vestimenta dan testimonio tanto de personas individuales como de instituciones, transmiten valores simbólicos y develan modos de percibir el mundo.
Pero expliquemos los hechos. La mayoría de los invitados a esta gran cita de la palabra en español, que concluyó ayer, recibieron una indicación muy precisa de sus anfitriones: el código de vestimenta requería traje oscuro (gris o azul) y corbata. Solo Joaquín Sabina desoyó esa recomendación, que tal vez ni siquiera le fue dada a sabiendas de que jamás la respetaría, y subió al escenario del Teatro del Libertador San Martín con una campera de cuero negra. El protocolo es forma.
Lo que acaso importa de esta escena, a riesgo de cometer una liviandad, es entender si ese signo de la indumentaria dice algo sobre la disposición que tienen académicos que abrazan esa fe en las formalidades (y la lengua es forma) a abrirse a las transformaciones lingüísticas que propone con vértigo a veces excesivo, y otras impulsado por modas fugaces o afiebradas ideologías, el presente acuciante. Cierto prejuicio tiende a hacernos pensar, quizá apresuradamente, que esa disposición es poca, pero las cosas no son tan sencillas. Lo prueba un episodio de algún modo insólito y bastante conocido que sucedió no hace mucho en la sección de consultas online del sitio oficial de la RAE, cuando un usuario dejó esta pregunta risueña e intencionada:
"La siguiente es una duda muy frecuente entre nosotros los usuarios de Twitter -escribió-. Quisiéramos saber si 'Te invito a mi casa a ver Netflix' se escribe con G o con J".
La respuesta de la Real Academia Española fue inmediata: "En cualquiera de sus acepciones, en el verbo «coger» se escriben con «g» las formas en que el sonido [j] va ante «e», «i»: coger, cogía; y con «j» las formas en que ese sonido va ante «a», «o»: cojo, cojamos". Se precisa de un humor muy fino y de una buena comprensión de las audiencias digitales para dar esa respuesta. No fue la primera vez que los responsables de esa sección acudieron a la ironía con semejante desfachatez.
Predicar en tierra de infieles
Sucede a veces que los medios, presas de la ansiedad periodística, fatigan al oyente o al lector anticipando hechos que finalmente no ocurren. El ansiado debate acerca de las derivaciones que puede alcanzar el lenguaje inclusivo tuvo una presencia modesta. Surgió apenas en algunas ponencias, como la de Luisa Valenzuela, por ejemplo, que citó primero a Lacan cuando este señaló que la mujer está fuera del lenguaje y después a George Steiner, quien dijo que los griegos habían podido dedicarse a la filosofía porque las mujeres se ocupaban de las necesidades cotidianas. "Muchos aún hoy parecerían temerle al lenguaje inclusivo -advirtió-, como si simbólicamente amenazara la supremacía masculina y, quizá, hasta al propio monoteísmo".
En el encuentro de clausura, José Luis Moure, presidente de la Academia de Letras, dejó sentada en una pieza memorable, por si sola un tributo a la lengua en español, una posición firme, aunque por momentos tocada por la resignación y el desencanto. Abogó por la preservación de la unidad de la lengua mediante el cultivo de la modélica o ejemplar, señaló que es la escuela la que debe esforzarse en su ejercicio ante la hostilización que sufre por las variedades de naturaleza oral hoy predominantes y precisó que no es posible ni deseable que las academias tomen una custodia prescriptiva o condenatoria de los supuestos desvíos de la lengua, al estilo de predicadores en tierra de infieles.
"La administración de la lengua común no debería salir de su morada natural, que es la mente humana -dijo a modo de pesarosa conclusión-. Lo que hoy es curiosidad lúdica o inquietud científica -la historia lo sabe- mañana puede ser una tragedia".
Antonio Seguí: el maestro y sus personajes
La muestra de Antonio Seguí
Curada por Clelia Taricco, la muestra "Antonio Seguí. Caligrafía. 30 años de escritura" es una selección de pinturas traídas desde Francia, donde reside el artista cordobés desde la década del 60, especialmente elegidas en el marco del VIII Congreso Internacional de la Lengua Española. La muestra, que abarca desde los años 70 hasta el presente, ocupa la planta alta del Cabildo de Córdoba. En las salas de planta baja se propondrá "Mirá Seguí", una muestra participativa y lúdica. La muestra sigue hasta el 19 de mayo y es una ocasión particular con el artista que inventó los personajes más reconocibles.
Fuente:https://www.lanacion.com.ar/cultura/una-discusion-saludable-sobre-el-futuro-y-las-tensiones-del-lenguaje-nid2233824
OPINIÓN | EDITORIAL | LENGUA ESPAÑOLA-La lengua que nos une
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
OPINIÓN | EDITORIALES | LENGUA ESPAÑOLA
La lengua que nos une
Nadie puede ignorar lo que significa para 500 millones de seres preservar la coherencia de un idioma común, que les permite entenderse sin dificultades
31 de Marzo de 2019
Si hay genio a quien los hispanohablantes deban tributar agradecimiento, es Felipe V. Al impulsar en 1713 la fundación de la Real Academia Española , con vistas a afirmar la cohesión nacional entre sus súbditos, sentó las bases de la emulación académica en los otros países en que se ha hablado la lengua madre de Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Darío, Lugones, Borges , Carpentier, Octavio Paz, García Márquez , Carlos Fuentes, Vargas Llosa .
Precisamente, tocó al premio Nobel de Literatura de 2010 pronunciar uno de los discursos más esperados del VIII Congreso Internacional de la Lengua , realizado recientemente en Córdoba . Como último gran supérstite de la generación que a mediados de los sesenta renovó las letras en español, Vargas Llosa tiene, al menos en la Argentina, dos razones de autoridad. La que deviene de una obra de ficción maravillosa y de ideales potenciados en ensayos y en la memoria colectiva de los porteños por la infortunada intervención, años atrás, de un funcionario que pretendió silenciarlo en la Feria del Libro de Buenos Aires. Era el censor de turno nada menos que director de la Biblioteca Nacional, sucesor de Mármol, de Groussac, de Borges, aunque dotado de muchísima menos visión y grandeza que aquellos tres a quienes Dios, en su "magnífica ironía", había dado "a la vez los libros y la noche".
Nadie más indicado que el autor de La ciudad y los perros para salir al cruce del flamante reclamo del presidente mexicano, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, al rey Felipe VI y al papa Bergoglio, de que se inclinen en perdón por la violencia habida en los años de la conquista. Por aquello de la espada y la cruz, claro. Si hay un elemento central en la cultura que identifica a pueblos diversos, esa es la lengua y, en este caso, las bondades de un fenómeno cultural compartido hoy por 500 millones de personas y por cuya unidad se vela en congresos como el de Córdoba. El mensaje infortunado e inoportuno de López Obrador al monarca español y al Papa había sido, por el contrario, el de la desunión y la dispersión, bien que con más astucia demagógica que real resentimiento. ¿Con qué autoridad para exteriorizar tales sentimientos?
Es lo que Vargas Llosa desnudó en filosa elipsis: México lleva cinco siglos incorporado al mundo occidental. En sus 200 años de vida independiente "tiene todavía millones de indios pobres, marginados y explotados". ¿No habría sido más oportuno -se preguntó el escritor peruano que López Obrador se hubiera interrogado a sí mismo en vez de haber planteado a terceros tan relevantes la delicada cuestión? Podrían reflexionar sobre esto mismo otros presidentes latinoamericanos.
En los prolegómenos del Congreso se habían levantado voces provenientes de colegios antropológicos, con la preocupación de que el celo por la unidad de la lengua española conspire contra la diversidad plurilingüística de América Latina. Se trata, en verdad, de un tema atizado en las últimas décadas incluso desde Europa por las controversias que allí se dirimen entre nacionalidades en pugna. No hay, sin embargo, una sola voz responsable en el mundo hispanohablante que ignore el valor enriquecedor de cualquier lengua o de sus formas dialectales o que olvide lo que para siempre se pierde cuando muere el último de sus hablantes.
En el vasto territorio argentino, en no pocos casos ceñidos a sus últimos confines, perviven no menos de una docena de lenguas indígenas: ava-guaraní, aymará, quechua, wichí, guaraní, chané, mocoví, mapuche o mapudungun, qom o toba.
Nadie, tampoco, podrá ignorar lo que significa para 500 millones de seres preservar la coherencia de la lengua común, por la cual unos y otros se entienden en español sin las dificultades observadas entre hablantes de otros grandes idiomas de Occidente. Ese ha sido mérito encarnado, desde Felipe V, en monarcas que han perseverado, como asiéndose a una irrenunciable responsabilidad histórica, en la misión de custodiar la homogeneidad de un idioma que fortalece ante el mundo el espíritu creativo de quienes lo hablan y escriben. Desde las letras y la política hasta la economía y las ciencias.
El presidente Macri, Felipe VI, escritores, lingüistas y académicos participaron a sala llena de esta reunión en la que se exaltó, en palabras de Carlos Fuentes, la lengua española como la de la rebelión frente al coloniaje y de la esperanza por el horizonte que se abría con la independencia de los nuevos países independientes.
Los viejos desafíos han mutado, sin embargo, de naturaleza, pero no de complejidad. Este ha sido el Congreso en que se abordaron las derivaciones de tecnologías que han incorporado a la inteligencia artificial como uno de los actores centrales de los tiempos actuales, aunque en modo alguno perfectos: los algoritmos de los correctores automáticos, denunció José María Álvarez-Pallete, presidente de Telefónica, tienden a viralizar errores como el de calificar de incorrectos a 7500 de los 93.000 vocablos del diccionario de la RAE.
La historia no avanza en línea recta. Aun así, logra progresos que impresionan: "El teléfono que tienes en la mano insistió el empresario español tiene 300.000 veces más capacitación de computación que la NASA cuando envió un hombre a la Luna, en 1969".
Fuente:https://www.lanacion.com.ar/opinion/editoriales/la-lengua-que-nos-une-nid2233790
OPINIÓN | EDITORIALES | LENGUA ESPAÑOLA
La lengua que nos une
Nadie puede ignorar lo que significa para 500 millones de seres preservar la coherencia de un idioma común, que les permite entenderse sin dificultades
31 de Marzo de 2019
Si hay genio a quien los hispanohablantes deban tributar agradecimiento, es Felipe V. Al impulsar en 1713 la fundación de la Real Academia Española , con vistas a afirmar la cohesión nacional entre sus súbditos, sentó las bases de la emulación académica en los otros países en que se ha hablado la lengua madre de Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Darío, Lugones, Borges , Carpentier, Octavio Paz, García Márquez , Carlos Fuentes, Vargas Llosa .
Precisamente, tocó al premio Nobel de Literatura de 2010 pronunciar uno de los discursos más esperados del VIII Congreso Internacional de la Lengua , realizado recientemente en Córdoba . Como último gran supérstite de la generación que a mediados de los sesenta renovó las letras en español, Vargas Llosa tiene, al menos en la Argentina, dos razones de autoridad. La que deviene de una obra de ficción maravillosa y de ideales potenciados en ensayos y en la memoria colectiva de los porteños por la infortunada intervención, años atrás, de un funcionario que pretendió silenciarlo en la Feria del Libro de Buenos Aires. Era el censor de turno nada menos que director de la Biblioteca Nacional, sucesor de Mármol, de Groussac, de Borges, aunque dotado de muchísima menos visión y grandeza que aquellos tres a quienes Dios, en su "magnífica ironía", había dado "a la vez los libros y la noche".
Nadie más indicado que el autor de La ciudad y los perros para salir al cruce del flamante reclamo del presidente mexicano, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, al rey Felipe VI y al papa Bergoglio, de que se inclinen en perdón por la violencia habida en los años de la conquista. Por aquello de la espada y la cruz, claro. Si hay un elemento central en la cultura que identifica a pueblos diversos, esa es la lengua y, en este caso, las bondades de un fenómeno cultural compartido hoy por 500 millones de personas y por cuya unidad se vela en congresos como el de Córdoba. El mensaje infortunado e inoportuno de López Obrador al monarca español y al Papa había sido, por el contrario, el de la desunión y la dispersión, bien que con más astucia demagógica que real resentimiento. ¿Con qué autoridad para exteriorizar tales sentimientos?
Es lo que Vargas Llosa desnudó en filosa elipsis: México lleva cinco siglos incorporado al mundo occidental. En sus 200 años de vida independiente "tiene todavía millones de indios pobres, marginados y explotados". ¿No habría sido más oportuno -se preguntó el escritor peruano que López Obrador se hubiera interrogado a sí mismo en vez de haber planteado a terceros tan relevantes la delicada cuestión? Podrían reflexionar sobre esto mismo otros presidentes latinoamericanos.
En los prolegómenos del Congreso se habían levantado voces provenientes de colegios antropológicos, con la preocupación de que el celo por la unidad de la lengua española conspire contra la diversidad plurilingüística de América Latina. Se trata, en verdad, de un tema atizado en las últimas décadas incluso desde Europa por las controversias que allí se dirimen entre nacionalidades en pugna. No hay, sin embargo, una sola voz responsable en el mundo hispanohablante que ignore el valor enriquecedor de cualquier lengua o de sus formas dialectales o que olvide lo que para siempre se pierde cuando muere el último de sus hablantes.
En el vasto territorio argentino, en no pocos casos ceñidos a sus últimos confines, perviven no menos de una docena de lenguas indígenas: ava-guaraní, aymará, quechua, wichí, guaraní, chané, mocoví, mapuche o mapudungun, qom o toba.
Nadie, tampoco, podrá ignorar lo que significa para 500 millones de seres preservar la coherencia de la lengua común, por la cual unos y otros se entienden en español sin las dificultades observadas entre hablantes de otros grandes idiomas de Occidente. Ese ha sido mérito encarnado, desde Felipe V, en monarcas que han perseverado, como asiéndose a una irrenunciable responsabilidad histórica, en la misión de custodiar la homogeneidad de un idioma que fortalece ante el mundo el espíritu creativo de quienes lo hablan y escriben. Desde las letras y la política hasta la economía y las ciencias.
El presidente Macri, Felipe VI, escritores, lingüistas y académicos participaron a sala llena de esta reunión en la que se exaltó, en palabras de Carlos Fuentes, la lengua española como la de la rebelión frente al coloniaje y de la esperanza por el horizonte que se abría con la independencia de los nuevos países independientes.
Los viejos desafíos han mutado, sin embargo, de naturaleza, pero no de complejidad. Este ha sido el Congreso en que se abordaron las derivaciones de tecnologías que han incorporado a la inteligencia artificial como uno de los actores centrales de los tiempos actuales, aunque en modo alguno perfectos: los algoritmos de los correctores automáticos, denunció José María Álvarez-Pallete, presidente de Telefónica, tienden a viralizar errores como el de calificar de incorrectos a 7500 de los 93.000 vocablos del diccionario de la RAE.
La historia no avanza en línea recta. Aun así, logra progresos que impresionan: "El teléfono que tienes en la mano insistió el empresario español tiene 300.000 veces más capacitación de computación que la NASA cuando envió un hombre a la Luna, en 1969".
Fuente:https://www.lanacion.com.ar/opinion/editoriales/la-lengua-que-nos-une-nid2233790
Saturday, March 30, 2019
CULTURA-El español, un idioma siempre en tensión, por Ariel Torres
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
CULTURA | ARTE Y CULTURA
El español, un idioma siempre en tensión
Ariel Torres
Fuente: Archivo
30 de Marzo de 2019
Uno de los ejes del VIII Congreso Internacional de la Lengua Española fue la tensión que existe entre las nuevas tecnologías y el empleo de nuestro idioma. Esa tensión, lejos de ser un proceso lineal y simple, es más bien una constelación de factores.
La revolución digital ha traído a todas las naciones industrializadas y, ahora, con los teléfonos inteligentes, incluso a los países menos avanzados técnicamente, cambios en todos los órdenes. Nunca antes en la historia habíamos tenido acceso a tanto poder de cómputo, y llevarlo en el bolsillo es casi de ciencia ficción. Va un ejemplo: la Cray-2, una supercomputadora de 1985, costaba 17 millones de dólares, pesaba dos toneladas y media y usaba 1000 litros de líquido refrigerante. Hoy, una PlayStation 4 es, dejando de lado algunas sutilezas técnicas, 1800 veces más potente.
Lo mismo ocurre con un avance que fue posible gracias a las computadoras económicas y livianas: internet. En la actualidad, casi 4000 millones de personas tienen acceso a la red de redes. Un poco más que la mitad de la población humana. El número de smartphones está cerca de los 3000 millones. Tienen, claro, conexión con internet y casi todos sintonizan los satélites de GPS y permiten geolocalizarnos.
No existe actividad humana que no haya recibido el impacto de esta formidable combinación: computadoras muy potentes (incluso de bolsillo) y una red mundial de alta velocidad que desconoce fronteras.
En ese contexto, era de prever que se produjera una tensión con el español y otros idiomas. La irrupción del correo electrónico y los mensajeros instantáneos, la multiplicación de medios audiovisuales, la aparición de neologismos y formas de escritura no tradicionales, e incluso el advenimiento de objetos culturales inéditos que combinan lenguajes tradicionales con los nacidos de la informática e internet, todo eso ha inspirado un debate que tiene dos posturas. En una, las nuevas tecnologías amenazan al español. En la otra, el idioma está haciendo lo de siempre, adaptarse y evolucionar.
Estas fueron las cuestiones que se expusieron ayer, en el espacio "Lengua, cultura y cambio tecnológico", del que participé con Joseba Abaitua, Concepción Company y Juan Cruz. Dirigió estas ponencias Leonardo Funes, del Conicet.
Fuente:https://www.lanacion.com.ar/cultura/el-espanol-un-idioma-siempre-en-tension-nid2233598
CULTURA | ARTE Y CULTURA
El español, un idioma siempre en tensión
Ariel Torres
Fuente: Archivo
30 de Marzo de 2019
Uno de los ejes del VIII Congreso Internacional de la Lengua Española fue la tensión que existe entre las nuevas tecnologías y el empleo de nuestro idioma. Esa tensión, lejos de ser un proceso lineal y simple, es más bien una constelación de factores.
La revolución digital ha traído a todas las naciones industrializadas y, ahora, con los teléfonos inteligentes, incluso a los países menos avanzados técnicamente, cambios en todos los órdenes. Nunca antes en la historia habíamos tenido acceso a tanto poder de cómputo, y llevarlo en el bolsillo es casi de ciencia ficción. Va un ejemplo: la Cray-2, una supercomputadora de 1985, costaba 17 millones de dólares, pesaba dos toneladas y media y usaba 1000 litros de líquido refrigerante. Hoy, una PlayStation 4 es, dejando de lado algunas sutilezas técnicas, 1800 veces más potente.
Lo mismo ocurre con un avance que fue posible gracias a las computadoras económicas y livianas: internet. En la actualidad, casi 4000 millones de personas tienen acceso a la red de redes. Un poco más que la mitad de la población humana. El número de smartphones está cerca de los 3000 millones. Tienen, claro, conexión con internet y casi todos sintonizan los satélites de GPS y permiten geolocalizarnos.
No existe actividad humana que no haya recibido el impacto de esta formidable combinación: computadoras muy potentes (incluso de bolsillo) y una red mundial de alta velocidad que desconoce fronteras.
En ese contexto, era de prever que se produjera una tensión con el español y otros idiomas. La irrupción del correo electrónico y los mensajeros instantáneos, la multiplicación de medios audiovisuales, la aparición de neologismos y formas de escritura no tradicionales, e incluso el advenimiento de objetos culturales inéditos que combinan lenguajes tradicionales con los nacidos de la informática e internet, todo eso ha inspirado un debate que tiene dos posturas. En una, las nuevas tecnologías amenazan al español. En la otra, el idioma está haciendo lo de siempre, adaptarse y evolucionar.
Estas fueron las cuestiones que se expusieron ayer, en el espacio "Lengua, cultura y cambio tecnológico", del que participé con Joseba Abaitua, Concepción Company y Juan Cruz. Dirigió estas ponencias Leonardo Funes, del Conicet.
Fuente:https://www.lanacion.com.ar/cultura/el-espanol-un-idioma-siempre-en-tension-nid2233598
TED TALKS-Fatima AlZahra´a Alatraktchi: To detect diseases earlier,let´s speak bacteria´s secret language
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
TEDxAarhus | October 2018
Fatima AlZahra´a Alatraktchi: To detect diseases earlier,let´s speak bacteria´s secret language
Bacteria "talk" to each other, sending chemical information to coordinate attacks. What if we could listen to what they were saying? Nanophysicist Fatima AlZahra'a Alatraktchi invented a tool to spy on bacterial chatter and translate their secret communication into human language. Her work could pave the way for early diagnosis of disease -- before we even get sick.
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Fatima AlZahra'a Alatraktchi · Nanophysicist, entrepreneur
Fatima AlZahra'a Alatraktchi invented a method to spy on the social behavior and communication of bacteria.
Transcript:
You don't know them. You don't see them. But they're always around, whispering, making secret plans, building armies with millions of soldiers. And when they decide to attack, they all attack at the same time. I'm talking about bacteria.
Who did you think I was talking about?
Bacteria live in communities just like humans. They have families, they talk, and they plan their activities. And just like humans, they trick, deceive, and some might even cheat on each other. What if I tell you that we can listen to bacterial conversations and translate their confidential information into human language? And what if I tell you that translating bacterial conversations can save lives? I hold a PhD in nanophysics, and I've used nanotechnology to develop a real-time translation tool that can spy on bacterial communities and give us recordings of what bacteria are up to.
Bacteria live everywhere. They're in the soil, on our furniture and inside our bodies. In fact, 90 percent of all the live cells in this theater are bacterial. Some bacteria are good for us; they help us digest food or produce antibiotics. And some bacteria are bad for us; they cause diseases and death. To coordinate all the functions bacteria have, they have to be able to organize, and they do that just like us humans -- by communicating. But instead of using words, they use signaling molecules to communicate with each other. When bacteria are few, the signaling molecules just flow away, like the screams of a man alone in the desert. But when there are many bacteria, the signaling molecules accumulate, and the bacteria start sensing that they're not alone. They listen to each other. In this way, they keep track of how many they are and when they're many enough to initiate a new action. And when the signaling molecules have reached a certain threshold, all the bacteria sense at once that they need to act with the same action.
So bacterial conversation consists of an initiative and a reaction, a production of a molecule and the response to it. In my research, I focused on spying on bacterial communities inside the human body. How does it work? We have a sample from a patient. It could be a blood or spit sample. We shoot electrons into the sample, the electrons will interact with any communication molecules present, and this interaction will give us information on the identity of the bacteria, the type of communication and how much the bacteria are talking.
But what is it like when bacteria communicate? Before I developed the translation tool, my first assumption was that bacteria would have a primitive language, like infants that haven't developed words and sentences yet. When they laugh, they're happy; when they cry, they're sad. Simple as that. But bacteria turned out to be nowhere as primitive as I thought they would be. A molecule is not just a molecule. It can mean different things depending on the context, just like the crying of babies can mean different things: sometimes the baby is hungry, sometimes it's wet, sometimes it's hurt or afraid. Parents know how to decode those cries. And to be a real translation tool, it had to be able to decode the signaling molecules and translate them depending on the context. And who knows? Maybe Google Translate will adopt this soon.
Let me give you an example. I've brought some bacterial data that can be a bit tricky to understand if you're not trained, but try to take a look.
Here's a happy bacterial family that has infected a patient. Let's call them the Montague family. They share resources, they reproduce, and they grow. One day, they get a new neighbor, bacterial family Capulet.
Everything is fine, as long as they're working together. But then something unplanned happens. Romeo from Montague has a relationship with Juliet from Capulet.
And yes, they share genetic material.
Now, this gene transfer can be dangerous to the Montagues that have the ambition to be the only family in the patient they have infected, and sharing genes contributes to the Capulets developing resistance to antibiotics. So the Montagues start talking internally to get rid of this other family by releasing this molecule.
And with subtitles:
[Let us coordinate an attack.]
Let's coordinate an attack. And then everybody at once responds by releasing a poison that will kill the other family.
[Eliminate!]
The Capulets respond by calling for a counterattack.
[Counterattack!]
And they have a battle.
This is a video of real bacteria dueling with swordlike organelles, where they try to kill each other by literally stabbing and rupturing each other. Whoever's family wins this battle becomes the dominant bacteria.
So what I can do is to detect bacterial conversations that lead to different collective behaviors like the fight you just saw. And what I did was to spy on bacterial communities inside the human body in patients at a hospital. I followed 62 patients in an experiment, where I tested the patient samples for one particular infection, without knowing the results of the traditional diagnostic test.
Now, in bacterial diagnostics, a sample is smeared out on a plate, and if the bacteria grow within five days, the patient is diagnosed as infected. When I finished the study and I compared the tool results to the traditional diagnostic test and the validation test, I was shocked. It was far more astonishing than I had ever anticipated.
But before I tell you what the tool revealed, I would like to tell you about a specific patient I followed, a young girl. She had cystic fibrosis, a genetic disease that made her lungs susceptible to bacterial infections. This girl wasn't a part of the clinical trial. I followed her because I knew from her medical record that she had never had an infection before. Once a month, this girl went to the hospital to cough up a sputum sample that she spit in a cup. This sample was transferred for bacterial analysis at the central laboratory so the doctors could act quickly if they discovered an infection. And it allowed me to test my device on her samples as well.
The first two months I measured on her samples, there was nothing. But the third month, I discovered some bacterial chatter in her sample. The bacteria were coordinating to damage her lung tissue. But the traditional diagnostics showed no bacteria at all. I measured again the next month, and I could see that the bacterial conversations became even more aggressive. Still, the traditional diagnostics showed nothing. My study ended, but a half a year later, I followed up on her status to see if the bacteria only I knew about had disappeared without medical intervention. They hadn't. But the girl was now diagnosed with a severe infection of deadly bacteria. It was the very same bacteria my tool discovered earlier. And despite aggressive antibiotic treatment, it was impossible to eradicate the infection. Doctors deemed that she would not survive her 20s.
When I measured on this girl's samples, my tool was still in the initial stage. I didn't even know if my method worked at all, therefore I had an agreement with the doctors not to tell them what my tool revealed in order not to compromise their treatment. So when I saw these results that weren't even validated, I didn't dare to tell because treating a patient without an actual infection also has negative consequences for the patient. But now we know better, and there are many young boys and girls that still can be saved because, unfortunately, this scenario happens very often. Patients get infected, the bacteria somehow don't show on the traditional diagnostic test, and suddenly, the infection breaks out in the patient with severe symptoms. And at that point, it's already too late.
The surprising result of the 62 patients I followed was that my device caught bacterial conversations in more than half of the patient samples that were diagnosed as negative by traditional methods. In other words, more than half of these patients went home thinking they were free from infection, although they actually carried dangerous bacteria. Inside these wrongly diagnosed patients, bacteria were coordinating a synchronized attack. They were whispering to each other. What I call "whispering bacteria" are bacteria that traditional methods cannot diagnose. So far, it's only the translation tool that can catch those whispers. I believe that the time frame in which bacteria are still whispering is a window of opportunity for targeted treatment. If the girl had been treated during this window of opportunity, it might have been possible to kill the bacteria in their initial stage, before the infection got out of hand.
What I experienced with this young girl made me decide to do everything I can to push this technology into the hospital. Together with doctors, I'm already working on implementing this tool in clinics to diagnose early infections.
Although it's still not known how doctors should treat patients during the whispering phase, this tool can help doctors keep a closer eye on patients in risk. It could help them confirm if a treatment had worked or not, and it could help answer simple questions: Is the patient infected? And what are the bacteria up to?
Bacteria talk, they make secret plans, and they send confidential information to each other. But not only can we catch them whispering, we can all learn their secret language and become ourselves bacterial whisperers. And, as bacteria would say, "3-oxo-C12-aniline."Thank you.
Source:www.ted.com
TEDxAarhus | October 2018
Fatima AlZahra´a Alatraktchi: To detect diseases earlier,let´s speak bacteria´s secret language
Bacteria "talk" to each other, sending chemical information to coordinate attacks. What if we could listen to what they were saying? Nanophysicist Fatima AlZahra'a Alatraktchi invented a tool to spy on bacterial chatter and translate their secret communication into human language. Her work could pave the way for early diagnosis of disease -- before we even get sick.
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Fatima AlZahra'a Alatraktchi · Nanophysicist, entrepreneur
Fatima AlZahra'a Alatraktchi invented a method to spy on the social behavior and communication of bacteria.
Transcript:
You don't know them. You don't see them. But they're always around, whispering, making secret plans, building armies with millions of soldiers. And when they decide to attack, they all attack at the same time. I'm talking about bacteria.
Who did you think I was talking about?
Bacteria live in communities just like humans. They have families, they talk, and they plan their activities. And just like humans, they trick, deceive, and some might even cheat on each other. What if I tell you that we can listen to bacterial conversations and translate their confidential information into human language? And what if I tell you that translating bacterial conversations can save lives? I hold a PhD in nanophysics, and I've used nanotechnology to develop a real-time translation tool that can spy on bacterial communities and give us recordings of what bacteria are up to.
Bacteria live everywhere. They're in the soil, on our furniture and inside our bodies. In fact, 90 percent of all the live cells in this theater are bacterial. Some bacteria are good for us; they help us digest food or produce antibiotics. And some bacteria are bad for us; they cause diseases and death. To coordinate all the functions bacteria have, they have to be able to organize, and they do that just like us humans -- by communicating. But instead of using words, they use signaling molecules to communicate with each other. When bacteria are few, the signaling molecules just flow away, like the screams of a man alone in the desert. But when there are many bacteria, the signaling molecules accumulate, and the bacteria start sensing that they're not alone. They listen to each other. In this way, they keep track of how many they are and when they're many enough to initiate a new action. And when the signaling molecules have reached a certain threshold, all the bacteria sense at once that they need to act with the same action.
So bacterial conversation consists of an initiative and a reaction, a production of a molecule and the response to it. In my research, I focused on spying on bacterial communities inside the human body. How does it work? We have a sample from a patient. It could be a blood or spit sample. We shoot electrons into the sample, the electrons will interact with any communication molecules present, and this interaction will give us information on the identity of the bacteria, the type of communication and how much the bacteria are talking.
But what is it like when bacteria communicate? Before I developed the translation tool, my first assumption was that bacteria would have a primitive language, like infants that haven't developed words and sentences yet. When they laugh, they're happy; when they cry, they're sad. Simple as that. But bacteria turned out to be nowhere as primitive as I thought they would be. A molecule is not just a molecule. It can mean different things depending on the context, just like the crying of babies can mean different things: sometimes the baby is hungry, sometimes it's wet, sometimes it's hurt or afraid. Parents know how to decode those cries. And to be a real translation tool, it had to be able to decode the signaling molecules and translate them depending on the context. And who knows? Maybe Google Translate will adopt this soon.
Let me give you an example. I've brought some bacterial data that can be a bit tricky to understand if you're not trained, but try to take a look.
Here's a happy bacterial family that has infected a patient. Let's call them the Montague family. They share resources, they reproduce, and they grow. One day, they get a new neighbor, bacterial family Capulet.
Everything is fine, as long as they're working together. But then something unplanned happens. Romeo from Montague has a relationship with Juliet from Capulet.
And yes, they share genetic material.
Now, this gene transfer can be dangerous to the Montagues that have the ambition to be the only family in the patient they have infected, and sharing genes contributes to the Capulets developing resistance to antibiotics. So the Montagues start talking internally to get rid of this other family by releasing this molecule.
And with subtitles:
[Let us coordinate an attack.]
Let's coordinate an attack. And then everybody at once responds by releasing a poison that will kill the other family.
[Eliminate!]
The Capulets respond by calling for a counterattack.
[Counterattack!]
And they have a battle.
This is a video of real bacteria dueling with swordlike organelles, where they try to kill each other by literally stabbing and rupturing each other. Whoever's family wins this battle becomes the dominant bacteria.
So what I can do is to detect bacterial conversations that lead to different collective behaviors like the fight you just saw. And what I did was to spy on bacterial communities inside the human body in patients at a hospital. I followed 62 patients in an experiment, where I tested the patient samples for one particular infection, without knowing the results of the traditional diagnostic test.
Now, in bacterial diagnostics, a sample is smeared out on a plate, and if the bacteria grow within five days, the patient is diagnosed as infected. When I finished the study and I compared the tool results to the traditional diagnostic test and the validation test, I was shocked. It was far more astonishing than I had ever anticipated.
But before I tell you what the tool revealed, I would like to tell you about a specific patient I followed, a young girl. She had cystic fibrosis, a genetic disease that made her lungs susceptible to bacterial infections. This girl wasn't a part of the clinical trial. I followed her because I knew from her medical record that she had never had an infection before. Once a month, this girl went to the hospital to cough up a sputum sample that she spit in a cup. This sample was transferred for bacterial analysis at the central laboratory so the doctors could act quickly if they discovered an infection. And it allowed me to test my device on her samples as well.
The first two months I measured on her samples, there was nothing. But the third month, I discovered some bacterial chatter in her sample. The bacteria were coordinating to damage her lung tissue. But the traditional diagnostics showed no bacteria at all. I measured again the next month, and I could see that the bacterial conversations became even more aggressive. Still, the traditional diagnostics showed nothing. My study ended, but a half a year later, I followed up on her status to see if the bacteria only I knew about had disappeared without medical intervention. They hadn't. But the girl was now diagnosed with a severe infection of deadly bacteria. It was the very same bacteria my tool discovered earlier. And despite aggressive antibiotic treatment, it was impossible to eradicate the infection. Doctors deemed that she would not survive her 20s.
When I measured on this girl's samples, my tool was still in the initial stage. I didn't even know if my method worked at all, therefore I had an agreement with the doctors not to tell them what my tool revealed in order not to compromise their treatment. So when I saw these results that weren't even validated, I didn't dare to tell because treating a patient without an actual infection also has negative consequences for the patient. But now we know better, and there are many young boys and girls that still can be saved because, unfortunately, this scenario happens very often. Patients get infected, the bacteria somehow don't show on the traditional diagnostic test, and suddenly, the infection breaks out in the patient with severe symptoms. And at that point, it's already too late.
The surprising result of the 62 patients I followed was that my device caught bacterial conversations in more than half of the patient samples that were diagnosed as negative by traditional methods. In other words, more than half of these patients went home thinking they were free from infection, although they actually carried dangerous bacteria. Inside these wrongly diagnosed patients, bacteria were coordinating a synchronized attack. They were whispering to each other. What I call "whispering bacteria" are bacteria that traditional methods cannot diagnose. So far, it's only the translation tool that can catch those whispers. I believe that the time frame in which bacteria are still whispering is a window of opportunity for targeted treatment. If the girl had been treated during this window of opportunity, it might have been possible to kill the bacteria in their initial stage, before the infection got out of hand.
What I experienced with this young girl made me decide to do everything I can to push this technology into the hospital. Together with doctors, I'm already working on implementing this tool in clinics to diagnose early infections.
Although it's still not known how doctors should treat patients during the whispering phase, this tool can help doctors keep a closer eye on patients in risk. It could help them confirm if a treatment had worked or not, and it could help answer simple questions: Is the patient infected? And what are the bacteria up to?
Bacteria talk, they make secret plans, and they send confidential information to each other. But not only can we catch them whispering, we can all learn their secret language and become ourselves bacterial whisperers. And, as bacteria would say, "3-oxo-C12-aniline."Thank you.
Source:www.ted.com
TED TALKS-Chuck Murry: Can we regenerate heart muscle with stem cells?
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
TEDxSeattle | November 2018
Chuck Murry: Can we regenerate heart muscle with stem cells?
The heart is one of the least regenerative organs in the human body -- a big factor in making heart failure the number one killer worldwide. What if we could help heart muscle regenerate after injury? Physician and scientist Chuck Murry shares his groundbreaking research into using stem cells to grow new heart cells -- an exciting step towards realizing the awesome promise of stem cells as medicine.
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Chuck Murry · Physician, scientist
Chuck Murry founded and currently directs the Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine at the University of Washington.
Transcript:
I'd like to tell you about a patient named Donna. In this photograph, Donna was in her mid-70s, a vigorous, healthy woman, the matriarch of a large clan. She had a family history of heart disease, however, and one day, she had the sudden onset of crushing chest pain. Now unfortunately, rather than seeking medical attention, Donna took to her bed for about 12 hours until the pain passed. The next time she went to see her physician, he performed an electrocardiogram, and this showed that she'd had a large heart attack, or a "myocardial infarction" in medical parlance.
After this heart attack, Donna was never quite the same. Her energy levels progressively waned, she couldn't do a lot of the physical activities she'd previously enjoyed. It got to the point where she couldn't keep up with her grandkids, and it was even too much work to go out to the end of the driveway to pick up the mail. One day, her granddaughter came by to walk the dog, and she found her grandmother dead in the chair. Doctors said it was a cardiac arrhythmia that was secondary to heart failure. But the last thing that I should tell you is that Donna was not just an ordinary patient. Donna was my mother.
Stories like ours are, unfortunately, far too common. Heart disease is the number one killer in the entire world. In the United States, it's the most common reason patients are admitted to the hospital, and it's our number one health care expense. We spend over a 100 billion dollars -- billion with a "B" -- in this country every year on the treatment of heart disease. Just for reference, that's more than twice the annual budget of the state of Washington.
What makes this disease so deadly? Well, it all starts with the fact that the heart is the least regenerative organ in the human body. Now, a heart attack happens when a blood clot forms in a coronary artery that feeds blood to the wall of the heart. This plugs the blood flow, and the heart muscle is very metabolically active, and so it dies very quickly, within just a few hours of having its blood flow interrupted. Since the heart can't grow back new muscle, it heals by scar formation. This leaves the patient with a deficit in the amount of heart muscle that they have. And in too many people, their illness progresses to the point where the heart can no longer keep up with the body's demand for blood flow. This imbalance between supply and demand is the crux of heart failure.
So when I talk to people about this problem, I often get a shrug and a statement to the effect of, "Well, you know, Chuck, we've got to die of something."
And yeah, but what this also tells me is that we've resigned ourselves to this as the status quo because we have to. Or do we? I think there's a better way, and this better way involves the use of stem cells as medicines.
So what, exactly, are stem cells? If you look at them under the microscope, there's not much going on. They're just simple little round cells. But that belies two remarkable attributes. The first is they can divide like crazy. So I can take a single cell, and in a month's time, I can grow this up to billions of cells. The second is they can differentiate or become more specialized, so these simple little round cells can turn into skin, can turn into brain, can turn into kidney and so forth. Now, some tissues in our bodies are chock-full of stem cells. Our bone marrow, for example, cranks out billions of blood cells every day. Other tissues like the heart are quite stable, and as far as we can tell, the heart lacks stem cells entirely. So for the heart, we're going to have to bring stem cells in from the outside, and for this, we turn to the most potent stem cell type, the pluripotent stem cell. Pluripotent stem cells are so named because they can turn into any of the 240-some cell types that make up the human body.
So this is my big idea: I want to take human pluripotent stem cells, grow them up in large numbers, differentiate them into cardiac muscle cells and then take them out of the dish and transplant them into the hearts of patients who have had heart attacks. I think this is going to reseed the wall with new muscle tissue, and this will restore contractile function to the heart.
Now, before you applaud too much, this was my idea 20 years ago.
And I was young, I was full of it, and I thought, five years in the lab, and we'll crank this out, and we'll have this into the clinic. Let me tell you what really happened.
We began with the quest to turn these pluripotent stem cells into heart muscle. And our first experiments worked, sort of. We got these little clumps of beating human heart muscle in the dish, and that was cool, because it said, in principle, this should be able to be done. But when we got around to doing the cell counts, we found that only one out of 1,000 of our stem cells were actually turning into heart muscle. The rest was just a gemisch of brain and skin and cartilage and intestine. So how do you coax a cell that can become anything into becoming just a heart muscle cell?
Well, for this we turned to the world of embryology. For over a century, the embryologists had been pondering the mysteries of heart development. And they had given us what was essentially a Google Map for how to go from a single fertilized egg all the way over to a human cardiovascular system. So we shamelessly absconded all of this information and tried to make human cardiovascular development happen in a dish. It took us about five years, but nowadays, we can get 90 percent of our stem cells to turn into cardiac muscle -- a 900-fold improvement. So this was quite exciting.
This slide shows you our current cellular product. We grow our heart muscle cells in little three-dimensional clumps called cardiac organoids. Each of them has 500 to 1,000 heart muscle cells in it. If you look closely, you can see these little organoids are actually twitching; each one is beating independently. But they've got another trick up their sleeve. We took a gene from jellyfish that live in the Pacific Northwest, and we used a technique called genome editing to splice this gene into the stem cells. And this makes our heart muscle cells flash green every time they beat.
OK, so now we were finally ready to begin animal experiments. We took our cardiac muscle cells and we transplanted them into the hearts of rats that had been given experimental heart attacks. A month later, I peered anxiously down through my microscope to see what we had grown, and I saw ... nothing. Everything had died. But we persevered on this, and we came up with a biochemical cocktail that we called our "pro-survival cocktail," and this was enough to allow our cells to survive through the stressful process of transplantation. And now when I looked through the microscope, I could see this fresh, young, human heart muscle growing back in the injured wall of this rat's heart. So this was getting quite exciting.
The next question was: Will this new muscle beat in synchrony with the rest of the heart? So to answer that, we returned to the cells that had that jellyfish gene in them. We used these cells essentially like a space probe that we could launch into a foreign environment and then have that flashing report back to us about their biological activity. What you're seeing here is a zoomed-in view, a black-and-white image of a guinea pig's heart that was injured and then received three grafts of our human cardiac muscle. So you see those sort of diagonally running white lines. Each of those is a needle track that contains a couple of million human cardiac muscle cells in it. And when I start the video, you can see what we saw when we looked through the microscope. Our cells are flashing, and they're flashing in synchrony, back through the walls of the injured heart.
What does this mean? It means the cells are alive, they're well, they're beating, and they've managed to connect with one another so that they're beating in synchrony. But it gets even more interesting than this. If you look at that tracing that's along the bottom, that's the electrocardiogram from the guinea pig's own heart. And if you line up the flashing with the heartbeat that's shown on the bottom, what you can see is there's a perfect one-to-one correspondence. In other words, the guinea pig's natural pacemaker is calling the shots, and the human heart muscle cells are following in lockstep like good soldiers.
Our current studies have moved into what I think is going to be the best possible predictor of a human patient, and that's into macaque monkeys. This next slide shows you a microscopic image from the heart of a macaque that was given an experimental heart attack and then treated with a saline injection. This is essentially like a placebo treatment to show the natural history of the disease. The macaque heart muscle is shown in red, and in blue, you see the scar tissue that results from the heart attack. So as you look as this, you can see how there's a big deficiency in the muscle in part of the wall of the heart. And it's not hard to imagine how this heart would have a tough time generating much force.
Now in contrast, this is one of the stem-cell-treated hearts. Again, you can see the monkey's heart muscle in red, but it's very hard to even see the blue scar tissue, and that's because we've been able to repopulate it with the human heart muscle, and so we've got this nice, plump wall.
OK, let's just take a second and recap. I've showed you that we can take our stem cells and differentiate them into cardiac muscle. We've learned how to keep them alive after transplantation, we've showed that they beat in synchrony with the rest of the heart, and we've shown that we can scale them up into an animal that is the best possible predictor of a human's response. You'd think that we hit all the roadblocks that lay in our path, right? Turns out, not.
These macaque studies also taught us that our human heart muscle cells created a period of electrical instability. They caused ventricular arrhythmias, or irregular heartbeats, for several weeks after we transplanted them. This was quite unexpected, because we hadn't seen this in smaller animals. We've studied it extensively, and it turns out that it results from the fact that our cellular graphs are quite immature, and immature heart muscle cells all act like pacemakers. So what happens is, we put them into the heart, and there starts to be a competition with the heart's natural pacemaker over who gets to call the shots. It would be sort of like if you brought a whole gaggle of teenagers into your orderly household all at once, and they don't want to follow the rules and the rhythms of the way you run things, and it takes a while to rein everybody in and get people working in a coordinated fashion. So our plans at the moment are to make the cells go through this troubled adolescence period while they're still in the dish, and then we'll transplant them in in the post-adolescent phase, where they should be much more orderly and be ready to listen to their marching orders. In the meantime, it turns out we can actually do quite well by treating with anti-arrhythmia drugs as well.
So one big question still remains, and that is, of course, the whole purpose that we set out to do this: Can we actually restore function to the injured heart? To answer this question, we went to something that's called "left ventricular ejection fraction." Ejection fraction is simply the amount of blood that is squeezed out of the chamber of the heart with each beat. Now, in healthy macaques, like in healthy people, ejection fractions are about 65 percent. After a heart attack, ejection fraction drops down to about 40 percent, so these animals are well on their way to heart failure. In the animals that receive a placebo injection, when we scan them a month later, we see that ejection fraction is unchanged, because the heart, of course, doesn't spontaneously recover. But in every one of the animals that received a graft of human cardiac muscle cells, we see a substantial improvement in cardiac function. This averaged eight points, so from 40 to 48 percent. What I can tell you is that eight points is better than anything that's on the market right now for treating patients with heart attacks. It's better than everything we have put together. So if we could do eight points in the clinic, I think this would be a big deal that would make a large impact on human health.
But it gets more exciting. That was just four weeks after transplantation. If we extend these studies out to three months, we get a full 22-point gain in ejection fraction.
Function in these treated hearts is so good that if we didn't know up front that these animals had had a heart attack, we would never be able to tell from their functional studies.
Going forward, our plan is to start phase one, first in human trials here at the University of Washington in 2020 -- two short years from now. Presuming these studies are safe and effective, which I think they're going to be, our plan is to scale this up and ship these cells all around the world for the treatment of patients with heart disease. Given the global burden of this illness, I could easily imagine this treating a million or more patients a year.
So I envision a time, maybe a decade from now, where a patient like my mother will have actual treatments that can address the root cause and not just manage her symptoms. This all comes from the fact that stem cells give us the ability to repair the human body from its component parts.
In the not-too-distant future, repairing humans is going to go from something that is far-fetched science fiction into common medical practice. And when this happens, it's going to have a transformational effect that rivals the development of vaccinations and antibiotics. Thank you for your attention.
Source:www.ted.com
TEDxSeattle | November 2018
Chuck Murry: Can we regenerate heart muscle with stem cells?
The heart is one of the least regenerative organs in the human body -- a big factor in making heart failure the number one killer worldwide. What if we could help heart muscle regenerate after injury? Physician and scientist Chuck Murry shares his groundbreaking research into using stem cells to grow new heart cells -- an exciting step towards realizing the awesome promise of stem cells as medicine.
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Chuck Murry · Physician, scientist
Chuck Murry founded and currently directs the Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine at the University of Washington.
Transcript:
I'd like to tell you about a patient named Donna. In this photograph, Donna was in her mid-70s, a vigorous, healthy woman, the matriarch of a large clan. She had a family history of heart disease, however, and one day, she had the sudden onset of crushing chest pain. Now unfortunately, rather than seeking medical attention, Donna took to her bed for about 12 hours until the pain passed. The next time she went to see her physician, he performed an electrocardiogram, and this showed that she'd had a large heart attack, or a "myocardial infarction" in medical parlance.
After this heart attack, Donna was never quite the same. Her energy levels progressively waned, she couldn't do a lot of the physical activities she'd previously enjoyed. It got to the point where she couldn't keep up with her grandkids, and it was even too much work to go out to the end of the driveway to pick up the mail. One day, her granddaughter came by to walk the dog, and she found her grandmother dead in the chair. Doctors said it was a cardiac arrhythmia that was secondary to heart failure. But the last thing that I should tell you is that Donna was not just an ordinary patient. Donna was my mother.
Stories like ours are, unfortunately, far too common. Heart disease is the number one killer in the entire world. In the United States, it's the most common reason patients are admitted to the hospital, and it's our number one health care expense. We spend over a 100 billion dollars -- billion with a "B" -- in this country every year on the treatment of heart disease. Just for reference, that's more than twice the annual budget of the state of Washington.
What makes this disease so deadly? Well, it all starts with the fact that the heart is the least regenerative organ in the human body. Now, a heart attack happens when a blood clot forms in a coronary artery that feeds blood to the wall of the heart. This plugs the blood flow, and the heart muscle is very metabolically active, and so it dies very quickly, within just a few hours of having its blood flow interrupted. Since the heart can't grow back new muscle, it heals by scar formation. This leaves the patient with a deficit in the amount of heart muscle that they have. And in too many people, their illness progresses to the point where the heart can no longer keep up with the body's demand for blood flow. This imbalance between supply and demand is the crux of heart failure.
So when I talk to people about this problem, I often get a shrug and a statement to the effect of, "Well, you know, Chuck, we've got to die of something."
And yeah, but what this also tells me is that we've resigned ourselves to this as the status quo because we have to. Or do we? I think there's a better way, and this better way involves the use of stem cells as medicines.
So what, exactly, are stem cells? If you look at them under the microscope, there's not much going on. They're just simple little round cells. But that belies two remarkable attributes. The first is they can divide like crazy. So I can take a single cell, and in a month's time, I can grow this up to billions of cells. The second is they can differentiate or become more specialized, so these simple little round cells can turn into skin, can turn into brain, can turn into kidney and so forth. Now, some tissues in our bodies are chock-full of stem cells. Our bone marrow, for example, cranks out billions of blood cells every day. Other tissues like the heart are quite stable, and as far as we can tell, the heart lacks stem cells entirely. So for the heart, we're going to have to bring stem cells in from the outside, and for this, we turn to the most potent stem cell type, the pluripotent stem cell. Pluripotent stem cells are so named because they can turn into any of the 240-some cell types that make up the human body.
So this is my big idea: I want to take human pluripotent stem cells, grow them up in large numbers, differentiate them into cardiac muscle cells and then take them out of the dish and transplant them into the hearts of patients who have had heart attacks. I think this is going to reseed the wall with new muscle tissue, and this will restore contractile function to the heart.
Now, before you applaud too much, this was my idea 20 years ago.
And I was young, I was full of it, and I thought, five years in the lab, and we'll crank this out, and we'll have this into the clinic. Let me tell you what really happened.
We began with the quest to turn these pluripotent stem cells into heart muscle. And our first experiments worked, sort of. We got these little clumps of beating human heart muscle in the dish, and that was cool, because it said, in principle, this should be able to be done. But when we got around to doing the cell counts, we found that only one out of 1,000 of our stem cells were actually turning into heart muscle. The rest was just a gemisch of brain and skin and cartilage and intestine. So how do you coax a cell that can become anything into becoming just a heart muscle cell?
Well, for this we turned to the world of embryology. For over a century, the embryologists had been pondering the mysteries of heart development. And they had given us what was essentially a Google Map for how to go from a single fertilized egg all the way over to a human cardiovascular system. So we shamelessly absconded all of this information and tried to make human cardiovascular development happen in a dish. It took us about five years, but nowadays, we can get 90 percent of our stem cells to turn into cardiac muscle -- a 900-fold improvement. So this was quite exciting.
This slide shows you our current cellular product. We grow our heart muscle cells in little three-dimensional clumps called cardiac organoids. Each of them has 500 to 1,000 heart muscle cells in it. If you look closely, you can see these little organoids are actually twitching; each one is beating independently. But they've got another trick up their sleeve. We took a gene from jellyfish that live in the Pacific Northwest, and we used a technique called genome editing to splice this gene into the stem cells. And this makes our heart muscle cells flash green every time they beat.
OK, so now we were finally ready to begin animal experiments. We took our cardiac muscle cells and we transplanted them into the hearts of rats that had been given experimental heart attacks. A month later, I peered anxiously down through my microscope to see what we had grown, and I saw ... nothing. Everything had died. But we persevered on this, and we came up with a biochemical cocktail that we called our "pro-survival cocktail," and this was enough to allow our cells to survive through the stressful process of transplantation. And now when I looked through the microscope, I could see this fresh, young, human heart muscle growing back in the injured wall of this rat's heart. So this was getting quite exciting.
The next question was: Will this new muscle beat in synchrony with the rest of the heart? So to answer that, we returned to the cells that had that jellyfish gene in them. We used these cells essentially like a space probe that we could launch into a foreign environment and then have that flashing report back to us about their biological activity. What you're seeing here is a zoomed-in view, a black-and-white image of a guinea pig's heart that was injured and then received three grafts of our human cardiac muscle. So you see those sort of diagonally running white lines. Each of those is a needle track that contains a couple of million human cardiac muscle cells in it. And when I start the video, you can see what we saw when we looked through the microscope. Our cells are flashing, and they're flashing in synchrony, back through the walls of the injured heart.
What does this mean? It means the cells are alive, they're well, they're beating, and they've managed to connect with one another so that they're beating in synchrony. But it gets even more interesting than this. If you look at that tracing that's along the bottom, that's the electrocardiogram from the guinea pig's own heart. And if you line up the flashing with the heartbeat that's shown on the bottom, what you can see is there's a perfect one-to-one correspondence. In other words, the guinea pig's natural pacemaker is calling the shots, and the human heart muscle cells are following in lockstep like good soldiers.
Our current studies have moved into what I think is going to be the best possible predictor of a human patient, and that's into macaque monkeys. This next slide shows you a microscopic image from the heart of a macaque that was given an experimental heart attack and then treated with a saline injection. This is essentially like a placebo treatment to show the natural history of the disease. The macaque heart muscle is shown in red, and in blue, you see the scar tissue that results from the heart attack. So as you look as this, you can see how there's a big deficiency in the muscle in part of the wall of the heart. And it's not hard to imagine how this heart would have a tough time generating much force.
Now in contrast, this is one of the stem-cell-treated hearts. Again, you can see the monkey's heart muscle in red, but it's very hard to even see the blue scar tissue, and that's because we've been able to repopulate it with the human heart muscle, and so we've got this nice, plump wall.
OK, let's just take a second and recap. I've showed you that we can take our stem cells and differentiate them into cardiac muscle. We've learned how to keep them alive after transplantation, we've showed that they beat in synchrony with the rest of the heart, and we've shown that we can scale them up into an animal that is the best possible predictor of a human's response. You'd think that we hit all the roadblocks that lay in our path, right? Turns out, not.
These macaque studies also taught us that our human heart muscle cells created a period of electrical instability. They caused ventricular arrhythmias, or irregular heartbeats, for several weeks after we transplanted them. This was quite unexpected, because we hadn't seen this in smaller animals. We've studied it extensively, and it turns out that it results from the fact that our cellular graphs are quite immature, and immature heart muscle cells all act like pacemakers. So what happens is, we put them into the heart, and there starts to be a competition with the heart's natural pacemaker over who gets to call the shots. It would be sort of like if you brought a whole gaggle of teenagers into your orderly household all at once, and they don't want to follow the rules and the rhythms of the way you run things, and it takes a while to rein everybody in and get people working in a coordinated fashion. So our plans at the moment are to make the cells go through this troubled adolescence period while they're still in the dish, and then we'll transplant them in in the post-adolescent phase, where they should be much more orderly and be ready to listen to their marching orders. In the meantime, it turns out we can actually do quite well by treating with anti-arrhythmia drugs as well.
So one big question still remains, and that is, of course, the whole purpose that we set out to do this: Can we actually restore function to the injured heart? To answer this question, we went to something that's called "left ventricular ejection fraction." Ejection fraction is simply the amount of blood that is squeezed out of the chamber of the heart with each beat. Now, in healthy macaques, like in healthy people, ejection fractions are about 65 percent. After a heart attack, ejection fraction drops down to about 40 percent, so these animals are well on their way to heart failure. In the animals that receive a placebo injection, when we scan them a month later, we see that ejection fraction is unchanged, because the heart, of course, doesn't spontaneously recover. But in every one of the animals that received a graft of human cardiac muscle cells, we see a substantial improvement in cardiac function. This averaged eight points, so from 40 to 48 percent. What I can tell you is that eight points is better than anything that's on the market right now for treating patients with heart attacks. It's better than everything we have put together. So if we could do eight points in the clinic, I think this would be a big deal that would make a large impact on human health.
But it gets more exciting. That was just four weeks after transplantation. If we extend these studies out to three months, we get a full 22-point gain in ejection fraction.
Function in these treated hearts is so good that if we didn't know up front that these animals had had a heart attack, we would never be able to tell from their functional studies.
Going forward, our plan is to start phase one, first in human trials here at the University of Washington in 2020 -- two short years from now. Presuming these studies are safe and effective, which I think they're going to be, our plan is to scale this up and ship these cells all around the world for the treatment of patients with heart disease. Given the global burden of this illness, I could easily imagine this treating a million or more patients a year.
So I envision a time, maybe a decade from now, where a patient like my mother will have actual treatments that can address the root cause and not just manage her symptoms. This all comes from the fact that stem cells give us the ability to repair the human body from its component parts.
In the not-too-distant future, repairing humans is going to go from something that is far-fetched science fiction into common medical practice. And when this happens, it's going to have a transformational effect that rivals the development of vaccinations and antibiotics. Thank you for your attention.
Source:www.ted.com
WE HUMANS-Have you mispronounced someone’s name? Here’s what to do next, by Gerardo Ochoa
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
WE HUMANS
Have you mispronounced someone’s name? Here’s what to do next
Mar 27, 2019
Gerardo Ochoa
Jenice Kim
Most of us have stumbled when saying an unfamiliar name. That’s natural, but it’s what we do afterwards that really matters, says writer Gerardo Ochoa.
This post is part of TED’s “How to Be a Better Human” series, each of which contains a piece of helpful advice from someone in the TED community.
Do you remember being in 5th grade? I’ll never forget it — because that’s when my name was changed.
I was nine years old, and my family had just immigrated from Mexico to a small town east of Portland, Oregon. Making that change was not easy. People ate different foods, they wore different clothes, and they spoke a different language. I quickly realized that when you are different, it can be very easy for everyone around you to tell you who you should be.
That’s when my name was changed, and I remember precisely when it happened. During the first fifth-grade roll call, the teacher started by calling out “John!” John answered in his squeaky voice: “Here.” Then, the teacher went down the list: “Kimberly!” and “Sarah!” They all called out “Here.” When she got to my name, she said, “Her … Jer … Jerry …” She settled on “Jerry!” (For the record, my name is pronounced “Her-are-doe”).
Without realizing it, she not only changed my name but my life. Because I was still learning to speak English and my parents had taught me to respect my teachers and elders, I didn’t question it. What I wanted to do was fit in. But fitting in came with a price.
Before long, few people knew my real name. It was like an out-of-control wildfire that spread too far, too fast for me to stop it. I accepted my new name, but I knew it was not me. I felt ashamed, I felt dirty, and I felt like a fraud. This wrong name was everywhere — in the school yearbook, my school ID, the local newspaper. Don’t get me wrong: I actually like the name Jerry. The only problem I had with it is it was not my name.
By now, I’ve heard thousands of variations of my name from students, teachers, employers, strangers who’ve become friends, and strangers who’ve remained strangers. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, I’ve researched it, and I’ve reflected on it. Educator and podcaster Jennifer Gonzalez has done a fantastic job on this subject, and she has come up with three different categories of mispronouncers, which I’d like to describe and build upon. Most of us have been one of them, at one time or another.
The first is the fumble mumbler. When I meet a fumble mumbler and introduce myself, they typically get nervous. They attempt to say my name, struggle a bit in the process, and may giggle. They usually settle for some close approximation of my name. I really don’t mind the fumble mumblers, because I can see that they’re trying and they know their problem is with their mispronunciation and not with my name.
The second is the arrogant mangler. When I meet a mangler, I know right away what kind of relationship we’ll have — and it’s usually not a good one. When I introduce myself, the arrogant mangler will respond with “Geraldo, it’s great to meet you blah blah blah …” They’ll go on talking, completely oblivious to the fact that they mispronounced my name. Often, they will continue with their own version of my name — even after I correct them. I have very little patience for the arrogant mangler, because to me they’re showing great disrespect or they don’t even care to try pronouncing my name.
The third is the calibrator. These are my favorite group of mispronouncers. The calibrator will listen to my name, they’ll slow down, read my lips, and attempt to say it. They may get it wrong, but they try again and again until they get it. Sometimes, they’ll come back to me the next day or week to ensure they’ve still got it right. If you struggle to pronounce some names, always strive to be a calibrator.
I’d like to add a fourth category to Gonzalez’ list: the evader. These are the people who’d rather call me something different than call me by my name or look silly trying to pronounce it. When I introduce myself, they say things like “Do you have a nickname?” or “I’m never going to be able to say that!” or “Can I just call you G or Jerry?” No matter what they say, it ends up making me feel like an other, like I don’t belong.
Pronouncing someone’s name correctly can make people feel valued, honored and respected — and mispronouncing their name creates real problems. Carmen Fariña, former chancellor of the New York City school system, has spoken about how she was marked absent for six weeks in kindergarten because she never heard her name being called. As it turns out, her name was read but it had been anglicized and mispronounced. Mispronouncing someone’s name leads to invisibility, and when students feel invisible in the classroom, she argues, they are less likely to have academic success.
Mispronouncing someone’s name can even have financial costs. In the 2013 offseason, basketball superstar Stephen Curry — pronounced Steff-en — switched sneaker sponsors, going from Nike to Under Armour. Why? According to an ESPN article that quoted Curry’s father, during Nike’s marketing pitch a couple of executives referred to Stephen as “Steph-on” (with an incorrect emphasis on the second syllable). This and a few other blunders cost Nike the support of an iconic player — and is estimated to have driven some $14 billion in sales to Under Armour.
Why is pronouncing someone’s name correctly such a struggle? When I talked to Nancy, my wife, about this, she shared her thoughts in a way that made a lot of sense. She said, “It’s kind of like driving. Some people have been privileged their entire life driving an automatic; when they meet you, you’re asking them to learn how to drive a stick-shift quickly on the spot. Some people can do it, others are willing to try, and some simply refuse.”
Every time I share the story about my name, I’m comforted by the fact that I’m not alone. So many people have had experiences similar to mine. At the same time, I’m disturbed that most people in the US who connect with it are immigrants and people of color. As our communities continue to be more diversified and globalized, the likelihood we’ll meet someone whose name we can’t pronounce keeps increasing.
All of us, myself included, are going to stumble and fumble. But it’s not your mistake that matters most; it’s what you do after the mistake. That’s when you have the chance to make someone feel like they belong — or feel like they’re the other. What will you choose to do?
Here are three simple tips that have helped me navigate this area:
Be humble — admit when you’re having difficulty with a name.
The first step to pronouncing someone’s name correctly is to acknowledge to yourself that you can’t pronounce it. It’s okay if the other person sees you struggling, and it’s okay if you have to ask for help. Usually, they’ll be more than willing to assist. When I see someone struggling to say my name, I help them, so when they finally achieve success, their success is my success, too. We both win.
Be an active bystander.
When you see and hear someone mispronounce another person’s name, take the initiative and correct them. So far, this has just happened once in entire life, and I’ll never forget it. When a friend corrected somebody else’s mispronunciation of my name, it took the burden off me. Deep down, it made my heart smile.
Don’t ever change someone’s name just because you can’t say it.
Try saying someone’s name, even if you get it wrong. Changing someone’s name is a decision that belongs to that individual, not to you.
I work on a college campus, and my favorite time of year is commencement, when we read graduating students’ names out loud. I’m fortunate to work with colleagues who practice and take great care with their pronunciation. It’s not lost on us that many people have spent so much time and given up so much — particularly immigrants who’ve have left their entire lives behind — to witness that moment when their student takes the stage. Those diplomas are more than pieces of paper. They symbolize sacrifice, hard work and sleepless nights, and people should hear their names pronounced correctly.
Let’s face it: We’re not always going to get people’s names right. But, more than ever, it matters that we try.
This piece has been adapted from his TEDxMcMinnville talk. Watch it here:
TEDxMcMinnville
Getting it right; why pronouncing names correctly matters
Gerardo Ochoa
TEDx Talks
Published on Feb 26, 2019
What is the impact of mispronouncing a name? In this powerful talk, Gerardo Ochoa shares the four styles of name mispronunciation, and the unseen but profound results of each.
Source:https://ideas.ted.com/have-you-mispronounced-someones-name-heres-what-to-do-next/www.youtube.com
WE HUMANS
Have you mispronounced someone’s name? Here’s what to do next
Mar 27, 2019
Gerardo Ochoa
Jenice Kim
Most of us have stumbled when saying an unfamiliar name. That’s natural, but it’s what we do afterwards that really matters, says writer Gerardo Ochoa.
This post is part of TED’s “How to Be a Better Human” series, each of which contains a piece of helpful advice from someone in the TED community.
Do you remember being in 5th grade? I’ll never forget it — because that’s when my name was changed.
I was nine years old, and my family had just immigrated from Mexico to a small town east of Portland, Oregon. Making that change was not easy. People ate different foods, they wore different clothes, and they spoke a different language. I quickly realized that when you are different, it can be very easy for everyone around you to tell you who you should be.
That’s when my name was changed, and I remember precisely when it happened. During the first fifth-grade roll call, the teacher started by calling out “John!” John answered in his squeaky voice: “Here.” Then, the teacher went down the list: “Kimberly!” and “Sarah!” They all called out “Here.” When she got to my name, she said, “Her … Jer … Jerry …” She settled on “Jerry!” (For the record, my name is pronounced “Her-are-doe”).
Without realizing it, she not only changed my name but my life. Because I was still learning to speak English and my parents had taught me to respect my teachers and elders, I didn’t question it. What I wanted to do was fit in. But fitting in came with a price.
Before long, few people knew my real name. It was like an out-of-control wildfire that spread too far, too fast for me to stop it. I accepted my new name, but I knew it was not me. I felt ashamed, I felt dirty, and I felt like a fraud. This wrong name was everywhere — in the school yearbook, my school ID, the local newspaper. Don’t get me wrong: I actually like the name Jerry. The only problem I had with it is it was not my name.
By now, I’ve heard thousands of variations of my name from students, teachers, employers, strangers who’ve become friends, and strangers who’ve remained strangers. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, I’ve researched it, and I’ve reflected on it. Educator and podcaster Jennifer Gonzalez has done a fantastic job on this subject, and she has come up with three different categories of mispronouncers, which I’d like to describe and build upon. Most of us have been one of them, at one time or another.
The first is the fumble mumbler. When I meet a fumble mumbler and introduce myself, they typically get nervous. They attempt to say my name, struggle a bit in the process, and may giggle. They usually settle for some close approximation of my name. I really don’t mind the fumble mumblers, because I can see that they’re trying and they know their problem is with their mispronunciation and not with my name.
The second is the arrogant mangler. When I meet a mangler, I know right away what kind of relationship we’ll have — and it’s usually not a good one. When I introduce myself, the arrogant mangler will respond with “Geraldo, it’s great to meet you blah blah blah …” They’ll go on talking, completely oblivious to the fact that they mispronounced my name. Often, they will continue with their own version of my name — even after I correct them. I have very little patience for the arrogant mangler, because to me they’re showing great disrespect or they don’t even care to try pronouncing my name.
The third is the calibrator. These are my favorite group of mispronouncers. The calibrator will listen to my name, they’ll slow down, read my lips, and attempt to say it. They may get it wrong, but they try again and again until they get it. Sometimes, they’ll come back to me the next day or week to ensure they’ve still got it right. If you struggle to pronounce some names, always strive to be a calibrator.
I’d like to add a fourth category to Gonzalez’ list: the evader. These are the people who’d rather call me something different than call me by my name or look silly trying to pronounce it. When I introduce myself, they say things like “Do you have a nickname?” or “I’m never going to be able to say that!” or “Can I just call you G or Jerry?” No matter what they say, it ends up making me feel like an other, like I don’t belong.
Pronouncing someone’s name correctly can make people feel valued, honored and respected — and mispronouncing their name creates real problems. Carmen Fariña, former chancellor of the New York City school system, has spoken about how she was marked absent for six weeks in kindergarten because she never heard her name being called. As it turns out, her name was read but it had been anglicized and mispronounced. Mispronouncing someone’s name leads to invisibility, and when students feel invisible in the classroom, she argues, they are less likely to have academic success.
Mispronouncing someone’s name can even have financial costs. In the 2013 offseason, basketball superstar Stephen Curry — pronounced Steff-en — switched sneaker sponsors, going from Nike to Under Armour. Why? According to an ESPN article that quoted Curry’s father, during Nike’s marketing pitch a couple of executives referred to Stephen as “Steph-on” (with an incorrect emphasis on the second syllable). This and a few other blunders cost Nike the support of an iconic player — and is estimated to have driven some $14 billion in sales to Under Armour.
Why is pronouncing someone’s name correctly such a struggle? When I talked to Nancy, my wife, about this, she shared her thoughts in a way that made a lot of sense. She said, “It’s kind of like driving. Some people have been privileged their entire life driving an automatic; when they meet you, you’re asking them to learn how to drive a stick-shift quickly on the spot. Some people can do it, others are willing to try, and some simply refuse.”
Every time I share the story about my name, I’m comforted by the fact that I’m not alone. So many people have had experiences similar to mine. At the same time, I’m disturbed that most people in the US who connect with it are immigrants and people of color. As our communities continue to be more diversified and globalized, the likelihood we’ll meet someone whose name we can’t pronounce keeps increasing.
All of us, myself included, are going to stumble and fumble. But it’s not your mistake that matters most; it’s what you do after the mistake. That’s when you have the chance to make someone feel like they belong — or feel like they’re the other. What will you choose to do?
Here are three simple tips that have helped me navigate this area:
Be humble — admit when you’re having difficulty with a name.
The first step to pronouncing someone’s name correctly is to acknowledge to yourself that you can’t pronounce it. It’s okay if the other person sees you struggling, and it’s okay if you have to ask for help. Usually, they’ll be more than willing to assist. When I see someone struggling to say my name, I help them, so when they finally achieve success, their success is my success, too. We both win.
Be an active bystander.
When you see and hear someone mispronounce another person’s name, take the initiative and correct them. So far, this has just happened once in entire life, and I’ll never forget it. When a friend corrected somebody else’s mispronunciation of my name, it took the burden off me. Deep down, it made my heart smile.
Don’t ever change someone’s name just because you can’t say it.
Try saying someone’s name, even if you get it wrong. Changing someone’s name is a decision that belongs to that individual, not to you.
I work on a college campus, and my favorite time of year is commencement, when we read graduating students’ names out loud. I’m fortunate to work with colleagues who practice and take great care with their pronunciation. It’s not lost on us that many people have spent so much time and given up so much — particularly immigrants who’ve have left their entire lives behind — to witness that moment when their student takes the stage. Those diplomas are more than pieces of paper. They symbolize sacrifice, hard work and sleepless nights, and people should hear their names pronounced correctly.
Let’s face it: We’re not always going to get people’s names right. But, more than ever, it matters that we try.
This piece has been adapted from his TEDxMcMinnville talk. Watch it here:
TEDxMcMinnville
Getting it right; why pronouncing names correctly matters
Gerardo Ochoa
TEDx Talks
Published on Feb 26, 2019
What is the impact of mispronouncing a name? In this powerful talk, Gerardo Ochoa shares the four styles of name mispronunciation, and the unseen but profound results of each.
Source:https://ideas.ted.com/have-you-mispronounced-someones-name-heres-what-to-do-next/www.youtube.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)