Colon vs Semicolon

Someone was asking about this earlier, and it just so happens that I have recently brushed up on my colon/semicolon usage.  So here's my answer:

It hinges on the relationship between the two clauses.

A colon is used when the text that follows is "further to" the current text.  It can be used to off-set both dependent and independent clauses, but the information has to follow on from the clause that was before it.

It's used when you introduce information:

There is something you must know: John is an inveterate liar.

Or when you give a list (after implying you are about to give a list):

There are three things you should know about John: he's ugly, he smells bad and his mother dresses him funny.

Or when there is a clear causal relationship (or you want to suggest there is):

John's lying ways would eventually catch up with him: he died alone in an abandoned mining town.*

In common usage, the colon is also used to introduce an example or a chunk of text (like I have done above).  Stylistically, though, you shouldn't use it for headings in documents.

A semi-colon is used to join two independent clauses that could easily be separate sentences, but are linked to each other on some level.

For example, if I wrote:

Your father is agitated today.  I saw John at the shops.

Those two sentences could be connected, or they could just be separate pieces of information that just happen to be next to each other.

But, if I wrote:

Your father is agitated today; I saw John at the shops.

Then the semicolon indicates that the two clauses are connected to each other, and one should be read in the light of the other.

Now, I could have written one of the sentences from my colon examples with a semicolon:

John's lying ways would eventually catch up with him; he died alone in an abandoned mining town.

And doing so would actually change the relationship between the clauses.  When I used a colon, I was indicating that one thing definitely lead to the other.  By using the semicolon, though, I'm hedging.  The death is connected to the lying ways, but not necessarily the result of them.

That's the usage side of things.  The style side of things (in terms of how many spaces to leave after the punctuation mark and whether the next word starts with upper or lower case) is a bit messier.  I have seen some style guides recommend that you treat a semicolon like a comma and a colon like a full stop, but other guides have suggested treating them both like a comma.

The answer is to hide behind the cloak of invisibility that is "consistency".  Pick a pattern and stick with it, until told otherwise.

What motivates you?

I've been thinking, lately, about the assumptions behind integrative orientation.

For those of you who don't know, integrative orientation is one of the concepts that gets bandied about when the literature concerning language learning (as distinct from "language learner literature", which is literature for language learners) starts talking about intrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic motivation is the idea that we learn something because we just love that thing.  We learn French because, gosh darn it, French is fabulous and we want to learn it.

Integrative orientation is the idea that we are intrinsically motivated because we love the culture behind the language and we want to be a part of it all.  In this case we learn French because the French are awesome and people who speak French are awesome and we want to share in all that awesomeness.

A lot of the stuff about motivating language learners assumes, therefore, that learners will be even more keen to learn if you show them more awesome groovy stuff about the culture and people behind the language.

Show your students French movies and tell them all about French cooking and they will slowly find themselves really wanting to be part of the French scene - this will make them want to learn French on a deep psychological level, which will help them learn French more easily.

Well, there is probably something to that, because when I was in high school I was much more integratively oriented to French (which wasn't offered at my school) than Indonesian (which was).  I took Indonesian because it was on offer, but quite frankly the more they told me about Indonesia, the less I felt like learning Indonesian.

Indonesia just never sounded like a place I wanted to visit.  It's hot, full of people and has poor dental care.  Not to mention dysentery.  I have a distinct lack of interest in places where the public hygiene is so bad they have the name of the place in a colloquialism for abdominal diseases (Bali Belly).  India is also unattractive to me, for more or less the same reasons.

And that whole bartering thing?  That may sound like a fun game, but it really just means the entire population is trying to rip each other off.  The sellers are trying to fleece the buyers for more than the product is worth (and hoping you're dumber than the last guy and will give them much more than it's worth) while the buyers are trying to undercut the sellers and pay less than the product is worth.  That is not a fair and equitable economy, in my books.

So, yeah, pretty much everything everyone told me about Indonesia left me feeling completely disinterested in learning Indonesian.  Kind of like integrative orientation in reverse.  If I'm not interested in the culture, the country or the people, why should I learn this language?

Well, I've recently renewed an interest in Indonesian - but not because I suddenly feel more likely to visit Indonesia.  No, my interest has been sparked by the realisation that Indonesian is an auxiliary language.

It's not the "native" language of anyone in Indonesia, but a standardised register of Malay that has been adopted as the lingua franca of the archipelago.  (I think everyone should, at some point in their lives, mention that at a dinner party:  "Oh, yes, Bahasa Indonesia.  I do believe that's a standardised register of Malay that is used as the lingua franca of the Indonesian archipelago..."  Then quickly change the subject before anyone asks you to explain any of that.)

I kind of knew that in high school, but the concepts of planned and auxiliary languages weren't on my radar at the time.  It probably would have been if someone had mentioned the word "Esperanto".  Even when I was a kid I was interested to know more about that language, but most people seemed to dismiss it.

A couple of months ago I read something that pointed out the artificial (yet successful) nature of Bahasa Indonesia, and suddenly my antennae were up.  I had an "oh, yeah..." moment, shortly followed by a "well, that's actually quite interesting" moment.

Now, coming from the angle that "planned languages are awesome" and "auxiliary languages are neat", I've started to think I might be interested in Indonesian after all.  I still don't think visiting the country sounds like something I actually want to do, but the language is becoming, well, intrinsically interesting.

I wonder if I would have been more engaged with Indonesian in high school if someone had tapped into the "this is an interesting language" side of things, rather than the "when you go to Indonesia..." angle.

And I also wonder if the focus on culture, place and people might actually demotivate people who could otherwise be academically interested in a language?

It would be interesting to find out.