Zooming In

« November 2005 | Main

December 19, 2005

Final Post

For me, the highlight of this semester was visitting the MFA and writing about the Ansel Adams photos. Going to a museum and seriously studying art is not something that I would do on my own, but I really enjoyed thinking deeper about Adams's work and other works in the museum as well.

One skill that I notice I now have is the inability to look at an image in an advertisement without picking it apart. I do it especially when I'm riding the T. I literally cannot look at the advertisements without trying to figure out what audience the advertisers were trying to appeal to, the signficance of small details in the image, the use of colors, etc...I definitely never thought about these things before taking this class, so it has opened up my eyes in that respect.

This class exposed me to practices that go on in the media, such as the objectification of women, that I knew existed, but gave very little thought to. Watching the movie "Killing Us Softly" made me realize that the objectification of women is a topic that I, as a woman, should have more passion for. My goal for the future is to act more aware of this issue and challenge it more often instead of just accepting it as "the way things are," like I did before this class.

Posted by lcissullivan at 03:30 PM | Comments (2)

final post?

Hello everyone. I'm so upset that I missed the last class and seeing all of your final projects. I heard they were all sooooo wonderful and meaningful, I wish I could have seen them. I don't really know what I'm posting, but based on everyone elses posts I have a general idea. The stellar point in the class for me was doing the final project. It was a break from writing and it was fun, but it opened up my eyes. The final porject topped the cake and it made me finally understand what we actually learnt in these classes. Something that I learnt in this class that has helped me is being able to look at things and take a better meaning from them. A goal for the future is to try and see things in a better light and not to jump to conlcusions so quickly on things like I normally do.

Posted by lcisnelson at 01:33 PM | Comments (0)

December 18, 2005

Evaluation

Seeing as I'm probably the last one to post.. I completely agree with what everyone else has mentioned thus far...

College is selfish. I often feel detached from the world. I don't read the paper, don't have time to really read news online, and hate the tv news. In a sense, this class was able to integrate current events with the concepts we were talking about. I liked how we were able to free think in class, it made me feel like my thoughts mattered, for once. Everything in class was really great, but the most STELLAR moment would have to be the final projects. I was overcome with so much emotion after the class had ended. It was a good way to see how far each one of us has evolved through our first semester as college students.

I've always been a very opinionated person, but I don't always vocalize what I am thinking. A skill that I have definitely acquired is my ability to express my thoughts and beliefs and justify them better. This class has caused me to think even more outside of the box, and that very important in such an autistic society today.

I hope I take all of this knowledge with me and put it to good use by questioning everything I don't understand, I am a better and more aware person having taken this class.

Posted by lcissearls at 12:22 PM | Comments (2)

December 17, 2005

Hey!

I have no idea what happened! Sorry Everyone!

Posted by lcisowens at 01:34 PM | Comments (0)

Final Evaluation

I know everyone is saying this, but I think it’s obvious how amazing the final projects were. I was so impressed by everyone’s artistic talents and ability to recognize an identity and think outside of the box to show how words and images can project this identity to society. There were so many projects that made me want to cry. That doesn’t happen in every class.

A skill I have now that I didn’t have before this class was the ability to be confident in my writing and to allow others to critique what I have written.  Blogging was very scary to me at first.  I would spend hours and hours reading over what I wrote, making sure that everything was proper English but still reflected who I am.  Now I still read over what I wrote, but I don’t spend twenty minutes on each sentence fearing that a classmate might be intensely critiquing something I blogged.  I finally realized that no one has enough time to do that.  I still don’t like writing things that other people can read but I’ve gotten over the fear and I can blog with no problem now.

My goal for next semester is to not worry as much about grades but instead to have fun and explore Boston.  I basically played catch-up this entire semester.  Now that I have a new start I’m not going to let myself get behind, but I’m also not going to allow myself to get as stressed as I did.  I didn’t do anything fun in Boston this past semester.  This upcoming semester I want to go to a lot of museums, walk the Freedom Trail and most of all, have fun.

Good Luck Next Semester Everyone! It's Been Fun!

Posted by lcisowens at 01:30 PM | Comments (0)

December 16, 2005

My Final Evaluation

I feel like I have learned a lot about communication from these MCC courses. I felt like the courses were based on how people talk to each other and how people interpret something from the way someone speaks or even from a visual image.

I think that the best moment was when we were able to do presentations about movies, and learn how actors are able to portray a certain person. We learned that usually what is portrayed about how a person acts is associated with stereotypes. I thought that it was great how everyone in the class was able to pick up these details from movies and pay attention to what the movie is trying to convey about people. I thought this was the best moment of the class, because everyone was able to present these ideas.

I don't think that I really acquired a new skill while being in this course, but I think that the skills that I already have were strengthened. I feel like I became more skilled in talking in class when I had the will to. When I felt like I had a good point to bring up in class I was able to do it and not feel like anyone would be too critical about my opinion. I felt like my opinion mattered and that other people were listening to what I had to say. I can say that this is one of the skills that I felt became stronger in this course.

Finally, a goal that I have set for myself is to try not to procrastinate with my work. Usually I have a good idea in my mind about a project that I am trying to accomplish, but I always get held back with a lot of other work. I think that I really need to find that balance in my work. When I can be able to do that then I think that my work will be even more effective. Overall this course has been a great experience.

--Yasmin

Posted by lcisperez at 04:59 PM | Comments (0)

Final Evaluation

Like Christina, my two favorite parts of the class were definitely the doing my final project and watching Crash and writing my analysis on it. I had a lot of fun working on my own final project and also seeing what everyone else had done. I was surprised at some of the other projects that i saw and how personal they were, everyone did such a great job! A skill that I developed in this class was being able to look at something (whether it be a painting or a piece of grass) and really see and examine it. I can now take something apart in a way that I couldn't before. I can describe something in much more detail and analyze some of the tiniest and seemingly most unimportant things. My goal for the future is to try to see things as Annie Dillard wrote about seeing. I want to take more time to look at the little things and life and try to be less focused on just the big picture.

Posted by lcismardin at 03:59 PM | Comments (0)

Evaluation

No doubt, my two favorite parts of the course were the Crash analysis and the final project, probably because I was able to relate both of them to each other at the end of the course. Before this class, I had never analyzed a movie in depth. I grew to love looking for every black and white juxtaposition in Crash and wondering what these colors could mean in every scene. This black and white them, as most of you probably know, from my writing, carried throughout the rest of the class. I could not stop thinking about these two colors that represent so many different aspects of our society today. I tried to bring this new way of thinking into my project. I am so thankful for the final project. I was able to express my feelings through images and words. Although no one could ever look at my project and know everything about me, I truly feel that that poster is a representation of my life at this point. The last class was truly empowering. Everyone's projects were done so well--and with so much thought! I was blown away. These projects were definitely a highlight of the class.

I never knew that I could analyze pictures and films or find a deeper meaning in any art. I was told in highschool that I was too logical, too literal, and I probably strayed away from art because of this. Now, I know I can. My future goal is now to explore this newfound area. I truly want to embrace it :)

Great job everyone! -Christina

Posted by lcisgancarz at 11:10 AM | Comments (0)

December 15, 2005

Evaluation

Just like everyone else, I have to agree that the "stellar" moment of the semester for me was seeing everyone's final projects. I was absolutely amazed by the variety of projects and how everyone invested themselves in their project totally and completely. The projects were all extremely different because they all used different mediums, yet they were alike because each focused on something that the author/illustrator/creator was extremely passionate about.

A skill that I have now that I did not have at the beginning of the semester is the ability to analyze and "pick apart" both visual and verbal works. I know so much more now about how the little pieces of visual and verbal works fit together to make a complete "masterpiece". I especially used this skill in regards to Crash, which I thoroughly enjoyed, although now I will "be forced to" analyze many movies I watch. (By the way, did anyone notice that Matt Dillon was nominated for a Golden Globe for Supporting Actor in Crash?)

In the future I hope to be able to apply the same regard and interest to all the areas I study. This class was so effective, I believe, because everything we learned had real world implications. My goal is to search for these in every class I take.

Posted by lciscotis at 11:13 AM | Comments (0)

December 14, 2005

Final Evaluative Post

Even though I am being redundant, I am going to have to say the most significant assignment/activity I did for the class was my final project and seeing others' final projects as well. I was completely blown away by the diversity of them--every single one was completely different in format and presentation and many new statements were made and perspectives formed on the eternally broad concept of identity. Though in the beginning of the school year I was not so enthusiastic about both classes, I did end up liking both. Maybe because in the beginning the transitional phase from high school/"old life" to college was hard on me and I had trouble focusing myself on my academics. But as I learned more about linguistics and visual culture as well as formed relationships and "built a community" (I'll use the corny cliché for lack of better terms now), I enjoyed the classes. I feel smarter from both Talk to Me and Zooming In!! I can think about language and visual images on a deeper level and I find myself always thinking and applying these darn analytical techniques and knowledge wherever I am! It's kind of a curse...

For the future, I am going to continue using this "curse" and viewing language and images more of in a linguist's perspective and seeing images not only at the face value level. I don't know if maybe these classes will influence future career paths I would like to pursue, but I do know that I'd like to take more communications classes and explore the possiblities of my Mac. Talk to Me, I know, will help me with pursuing languages because now I have both the scientific perspective and the cultural awareness of language.

Posted by lcisfreya at 08:41 PM | Comments (0)

Final Post

The most important skill I feel that I've gained from this class is to think in an ABSTRACT way, or "outside of the box". I don't think there's any other way to put it. It has helped me to be more creative in my thinking.

I agree with Jessica that the highlight of the semester was the final project. I was completely blown away by how much thought and talent went into everyone's projects. And since the class is called "Visual Culture" I enjoyed doing a project that was visual! The other part of the class that I loved equally as much was the trip to the MFA and getting the chance to write about art through the context of the class. It helped me apply the concepts to something that I love.

My goal related to Visual Culture is to take this abstract way of thinking and apply it to many aspects of my academic life, and hopefully my future career, as well as to question what I see and what is presented to society.

Posted by lcishagan at 05:54 PM | Comments (1419)

Final Evaluative Post

My favorite part of the class was actually the final project. I would much rather put together a project than write a paper, so I really enjoyed that. I also liked that it was basically open to interpretation, which made it a little hard to get started because there were so many possibilites, but once I had my topic I was all set and I really enjoyed putting it together. I think a skill that I gained over the semester was that I now, after watching Crash, look at movies in a different way. As I watch movies now, I think about why things are in the scene and why the director chose to show this and not that, and I find that very interesting. A goal that I have set for myself in the future is just to look at the world in different views. I hope that I don't take things for granted and that I can see the beauty in everything. I hope that I don't become to preoccupied with life that I miss some stunning sights.

-Jessica F.

Posted by lcisfaria at 04:12 PM | Comments (1)

Last assignment...as promised

IT's almost all over...as you wind down and get ready to relax and rejuvinate, I'd like to ask you for a final evaluative post. Please think back over the semester and describe a stellar moment; a skill that you now have that you didn't when you began the semester; and finally a goal that you have set for yourself for the future .

Peace....

Posted by lcisEllen at 11:07 AM | Comments (0)

December 08, 2005

Response to Yasmin's Question

1) Why do people decide to code-switch (change one's dialect)in language?

I think that code-switchnig is an effective way to communicate. If you know that a certain type of person speaks a certain way, or expects you to speak a certain way, it is easier and more effective to fit the norms of the situation. A person might drop f-bombs with her friends all the time but when coversing with an adult, hesitates to say "crap". Because of this code-switch, the respect to adults is shown and both people in the conversation are speaking to each other the same way.

Posted by lcisowens at 12:00 AM | Comments (0)

December 07, 2005

I Forgot a Title

Sorry, the previous entry was my comments and questions for Lisa Delpit "No Kinda Sense"

Posted by lcisowens at 11:53 PM | Comments (1185)

Comments

1. Before I read this article (and before we discussed the Ebonics Controversy in class) I remember having a conversation with my older sister and she was talking about how awful it is that people who speak Black English are discriminated against in society. I, being ignorant of the Ebonics Controversy, disagreed with her and supported my argument well. However, after reading this article, I understand everything she was saying and I realize that she was right (as usual).
2. I think the term “code-switching” is interesting because even though it’s being applied to “White English” verses “Black English,” I think code-switching isn’t just switching from one race to another, but also different age groups or social scenes.
3. I think that it is wrong that some parents feel obligated to restrict their children’s usage of a language associated with their culture because it doesn’t fit society’s view of “Proper” English.
4. I personally don’t think teachers should specialize a school’s curriculum to focus more on what interests the students rather than directly teaching the subject. Assuming all young black girls will be interested in a math class about hair dressing is also a stereotype. Also, this type of motivation to encourage class participation, I feel, is unnecessary. I have always loved basketball and science has always bored me. However, though it would interest me more, I don’t think there should be a science class that focuses on the air pressure and materials of a basketball because discipline is also an important lesson to learn. If things are only taught to interest students, they will never try later in life when an important class happens to be extremely boring.
5. I think teachers should learn Ebonics so that they can help students who only speak in Ebonics learn “Proper English.” Also, I think it’s important for them to understand that Ebonics is an actual language so that instead of assuming a student is unintelligent they can realize a student’s full potential no matter their cultural differences.

Questions

1. Will making a curriculum more interesting but less intense have a positive or negative effect on a student’s motivation and education?
2. Will the Ebonics Controversy ever be resolved? Why not or how?
3. Do you think Lisa Delpit should stop her daughter from speaking Ebonics knowing the consequences? Why or why not?
4. Do think code switching is strictly based on race, or can it also be based on age groups and social groups?
5. Do you think there is any possibility that Ebonics would ever be accepted in a professional or educational atmosphere? Is this Delpit’s goal?

Posted by lcisowens at 11:50 PM | Comments (76)

Chapter 5 (Stubb's article)

Comments

1. At first, when reading this article, I thought that it was outdated and inapplicable to me and my life. However, when I began to think about it, I realized that I do make judgments about a person’s intelligence and educational level if I hear him/her say “good” instead of “well,” or “real” instead of “really.” I never thought that it was wrong to make judgments on things like this before.
2. I think that it is wrong for teachers to assume academic ability based on speech usage and it’s sad to know that this is human nature and it will probably never change. However, if teachers don’t seek out to correct this papers will include slang terms and the quality of education will lessen.
3. I didn’t think “sort of” was improper in English. I felt really dumb when they were saying that using the phrase “sort of” is comparable to retreating to “Tarzan” English.
4. I think it’s interesting that English, as a language is accent-less. It’s too bad that even though there is technically no right or wrong way to speak English, stereotypes are still created and used to discriminate against certain groups or cultures.
5. I think Michael Stubbs’s brings up a good point in that language usage greatly affects education. A vicious cycle starts where people with certain linguistic styles are less educated and therefore do not learn the “proper” linguistic style. As a result they continue to be less educated.

Questions

1. What can the educational systems do to prevent teachers from judging a student’s potential based on their linguistic style?
2. Am I the only one who thinks that sort of isn’t that unintelligent of a phrase? I mean, I wouldn't use it in a paper, but I definitely would judge a person’s intelligence if he or she used it.

Posted by lcisowens at 08:53 PM | Comments (88)

December 05, 2005

Chapter 5 Response

Michael Stubbs successfully unpacks the biases surrounding different dialects and accents and begins lifting each item up into the light and re-labeling it. And in doing so he exposes the social values and stereotypes that pervade many cultures, in addition to those he examined in Britain.

I welcomed this recalibration of the linguistic yardstick. Ironically, South Africa, a British colony for many years, adopted similar educational and social values as its imperial motherland and so, growing up, I felt the full weight of the prescriptive (and rather elitist) grammar the author identifies as being behind social stereotyping.

I enjoyed Stubbs’ comment that code switching or style-shifting, as he calls it, “is not reprehensible, implying a chameleon-like fickleness, but a basic sociolinguistic fact about language use all over the world.” I felt that he was giving us permission to be ourselves in every situation when often in the past prescriptive grammars have, in seeking to maintain a constancy of self, paradoxically forced us to deny the fullness of our identity.

I thought this work was really valuable particularly in light of our other readings. It added a great deal to the ‘picture’ since Stubbs details rather alarming findings from various studies conducted in schools where teachers bias towards students’ dialects and accents can have a life-changing impact on students’ experiences.

I was saddened to think that this article, first published in 1976, is still so applicable today and I wonder how we might usher in the ultimate aim Stubbs sets forth of making “more people more tolerant of linguistic diversity.”

~ Nanette

Questions:

1. The author observes that “no linguist would nowadays take this prescriptive attitude” but gives many examples of how teachers would. I wonder how we could filter this shift in attitude through the educational institution?
2. The author differentiates between accent (as pronunciation) and dialect (as language variety) and speaks of how style-shifts occur in our dialect as we move between different social situations. I wonder, by the same token if it’s possible for us to be multi-accentual?

Posted by lcissavides at 10:25 PM | Comments (0)

Allie's Response to Jessica Yeich's Question

I am responding to Jessica Yeich's following question:

"If colloquilisms are created everyday and jargon accepted commonly, why is it wrong to use them in all situations as long as the listener is aware of the new colloquilism?"

I think that it may be considered "wrong" to use everyday jargon in certain situations, even though the meaning is understood, because of the connotation that comes along with it. The fact that the jargon is jargon itself implies a more casual, up-to-date, and therefore less formal tone. This could possibly be inferred as a sign of disrepect in what may be a formal conversation or situation. OFten more "sophisticated" and less causal conversations take place between people who are not one hundred percent familiar or comfortable with one another, and want to make the best impression of themselves and what they may be representing. The older style of conversation may stick to the "sophisticated" language because if it consisted of new jargon and colloquillisms, the speakers would have to be sure to stay on top of new slang, etc. Doing so would be difficult for those older, professional, "high-society" citizens who do not spend time out with younger people, who generally greatly contribute to new jargon, or in their environments. By sticking to the older, more conventional language as being what is accepted and proper in formal situations, or with someone a person does not know well, is a rule that can be followed throughout the years without drastic change or effort to keep up with something new.

Posted by lcisthur at 04:26 PM | Comments (0)

Chapter 3 Response

I appreciated the candor with which Lisa Delpit wrote No Kinda Sense. I felt a real sense of the complex issues she explained in the article by her sharing her immediate reactions and thoughts to her daughter use of Ebonics.

I thought it interesting that she mentions that outspoken African American critics of the Oakland Policy had "no knowledge of the real policy" and that the New York Times would not allow a rebuttal to the Atlanta's Black Professionals advert be printed. I wish there could be a time when the public arena did hold "fair competitions."

I was interested by Delpit's comments on page 37 about African American's concern over what those in power would think of them since they'd worked for so many years to prove themselves. I'm fascinated by dynamic in oppression where the oppressed almost have to accept the status quo and almost accept some of the ideology in order to try and escape. So even if the principles are absolute values judgements and skewed at best, sometimes you have to accept them in order to overcome them. Or perhaps not. This is what I find fascinating.

I was blown away by the concept that racism hears and doesn't only see. Delpit makes this so clear when she points out that although society may by and large feel it can see beyond skin color, "there are as yet few pockets that can 'listen beyond' language form." This was so true of my viewpoint up until I started traveling and was a foreigner in another country. This made me aware of how layered a concept like racism can be, beyond the obvious. And how it is upheld by different elitest values.

~ Nanette

Questions:

1. Delpit did not question the assumption that white english is the standard dialect. I take issue with this and would want to explore that more.
2. I'd enjoy spending more time examining the solutions Delpit proposes. I think they are dynamic and the principles could be applied in almost any situation where there is an "other" who is different.

Posted by lcissavides at 03:25 PM | Comments (0)

Thought on language heritage

I had a thought in class just now. We were talking about why it is that our view of our cultural heritage changes and how and why we seem to warm to them after time.

I think this is part of the identity shift immigrants experience that will happen all over the world as long as people emigrate. While the immigrants may be from different places I would vouch that they all similarly want their children to assimilate into the new culture. To embrace and benefit from all their new world has to offer and that they've, invariably, sacrificed a great deal for.

My husband's grandfather, a Cypriot Greek, emigrated to South Africa and did not teach his children Greek. Using his family, other immigrant experiences I've heard, and the comments in class as examples, I believe there is a pattern that in second and third generations immigrants rekindle an interest in the culture and language of their forebears since they are comfortable and assured of their belonging in the new culture but wish to fulfill a deeper sense of connectedness to their history and origins.

~ Nanette

Posted by lcissavides at 12:42 PM | Comments (0)

The Skin that We Speak: Chapter 3

The opening of this chapter raises an important issue in linguistics and that is that despite the fact that linguists say that everyone is entitled to use language as they wish and there is no form that is superior to another, we still want to sound correct when speaking. Even though we have the privellage to speak however we want, we don't, and this is because we fear being viewed a certain way. Linguistic profiling encourages people to speak the same because they do not want to become victims of stereotypes.

The opinions of Maya Angelou sharply contrast those of James Baldwin. Whereas Baldwin thought that calling Black English a dialect, rather than its own language, was insulting, Maya Angelou felt it was dangerous to call it its own language. She felt that this could suggest that African Americans are unable to learn White English, and as a result they would be looked at as stupid. It is interesting how two people can have such a different take on a subject and how each can have valid reasons for their opinion.

It is frightening to think about how much rides on the interview process of applying for a job. This chapter talks about the over-qualified computer technician who could not get hired because of her Southern and rural dialect. This enforces the idea that when you are competing for a spot in some sort of organization, the most important aspect of you is how you present yourself, specifically how you use language.

The concept of conscious learning versus unconscius acquisition is intersting because it states that basically the speed with which a language can be learned depends upon how much a person identifies with that language and whether or not using the language is fun. This reminds me of the Genie case, in which Genie was able to acquire language at first at a ridiculously fast rate. This accelerated acquisition was probably based on the fact that for a girl who had practically no human contact all of her life, speaking and interacting with others was fun and therefore she picked up the language at a faster rate.

When I read about the style in which young African Americans are taught I realized that the author is correct in saying that in schools the main focus of African American heritage is slavery. That is all I can remember learning about in regards to African Americans, and although it is an important part of history, schools should also make a point to teach about the positive aspects of African American heritage.

Some questions I had about this chapter were: Would African Americans be offended if white people tried to learn both forms of English as they have? Can a language be owned by its people? Does segregation have any advantages in the sense that African American students would not feel "less than" their white peers? In rejecting a student's mother tongue, are school systems weakening the education that those children receive? Is our nation's inability to see beyond language hindering our progress?

Posted by lcissullivan at 09:29 AM | Comments (0)

The Skin that We Speak: Chapter 5

The study of linguistic stereotypes that is investigated in this chapter reminds me a lot of John Baugh's work. In 1971 experiments were held in Britian in which people listened to the same speaker put on different accents and were asked to describe that speaker. The subjects said that the person speaking standard English was more intelligent, when reality it was the same person who was speaking the less proper English. This is similar to the recordings we heard in class. We too made assumptions about the person speaking, when in reality we were listening to John Baugh everytime.

The transcript of a conversation with a young British girl I think brings up a good point about our perception of language. The young girl perceives another person as being uneducated because they use improper terms such as "sort of," when she herself uses that exact same term. This shows that people shouldn't criticize or judge others based on their use of language because no one uses language perfectly. Everyone is at least somewhat grammatically incorrect, therefore criticizing others becomes hypocritical.

Another important point that this chapter stresses is that of all the languages and dialects out there, none are superior over others. There are "culturally learned notions" which suggest that one dialect is more "proper" than another, but these notions are only based upon the wealth and prestige of the people who use that dialect, not the actual language itself.

I find the parts about linguistic profiling by teachers to be very interesting. The author seems to suggest that often time a teacher's perception of a student is based more on how that students appears and speaks, rather than how he or she actually performs academically. The author points out however, that teacher should not be so quick to judge students based on their use of language becuase they only get to see one style of a pupil's language. Teachers do not get to see how that pupil speaks to his or her friends or family, therefore they should not judge a pupil on something that they themselves do not have full access to.

Something I realized when reading this chapter is that we often think that people who speak what is considered to be an improper form of language are the victims of linguistic profiling, as they are assumed to be uneducated and of lower class. However, people who speak their language properly are also many times victims of linguistic profiling. Such people are assumed to be snobby or stand-offish, when this may not be the case at all. So speaking both proper and improper forms of a language has its advantages and disadvantages.

Some questions I had about this chapter are: The author states that prescriptive grammars are no longer around, and today most grammars are descriptive. If this is the case then why are people still criticized for using evolved forms of a language? Why does the author seem to focus on the language of young children, which is constantly changing and developing, rather than that of adults? Does there exist one style of a language that can be appropriately used in all situations (for example with friends, family, superiors, etc.)? Why do higher class dialects have more consistency despite geographic location than working class dialects, which vary greatly from region to region? Does being in an educational setting as a child merely hinder childrens' abilities to form their own individual style of language?

Posted by lcissullivan at 08:53 AM | Comments (0)

Ch. 5 "Sociolinguistic Concepts"

Comments.

1. I think it is interesting that the author correlates educational failure with linguistic failure. I would think home-life and social life would also effect the linguistic process. The educational system just does not seem to bolster different dialects as it should.

2. The fact that dialects affect/reveal social status in Britain is slightly old-fashioned. With the modern technological world and the "in with the new" generation, dialects should not be looked down upon. Having social classes in England continues to repress those "not suppossed to be educated" according to their dialect. Just because one is born into a certain area does not mean one is less able to be educated.

3. I think it is absurd that most teachers are unaware that all speech communities use ranges of different language varieties in different social contexts. Like the author states, it is an elementary idea and should be something an educated person realizes. Even simple observation of the way one talks to a baby and how one talks to his/her boss shows different language varieties.

4. It is certainly true that teacher's judge the students on irrelevant information. We generally assume a person's attitude, social status, monetary status, and home town by their dialect. Unexplanatory judgments are created and the possibility for that student to learn as much as a favored student with a favored dialect dwindles.

5. I think it interesting that the author explained that even caveman language was a complex grammatical system. We generally think of these languages as inferior because of their simplicity. This simplicity is merely a difference in function. Cavemen did not have to use language to describe specific parts to a computer like we do today. Scientific advancement has also arranged a more functional language.

Questions.

1. Why has the British class system based on dialects persevered over time?

2. Why would there be such a dramatic difference between Standard and Nonstandard languages if they are only differences in lexicon?

3. Is it useful to dwell on "superficial linguistic items" in the educational system or could the time spent correcting imperfections be used to teach other languages that would advance a student's knowledge?

4. If colloquilisms are created everyday and jargon accepted commonly, why is it wrong to use them in all situations as long as the listener is aware of the new colloquilism?

5. Judging others is a natural process (whether considered "right or wrong" is your decision) so why should it be excluded in the very social scene of the educational system?

Posted by lcisyeich at 01:25 AM | Comments (0)

Ch. 3 No Kinda Sense

I thought it was correct in saying that people "code-switch" and speak differently in front of different audiences. She later writes that there isnt a necessity in teaching one language for twelve years if students can pick up multiple within a little bit of time. The fact that she puts this code-switch as "the child's camouflage is in order when she must encounter potential enemy forces" is a sadly ridiculous statement. Those that critisize black english to the extent that they become enemies aren't linguists in any way or even grammatarians, they are only close minded.

I thought it was interesting that as a professor, who was hypocritical in her thoughts of being unconcerned about what others think, she kept her "love and use" for ebonics a secret. If she thought ebonics was something to keep a secret, it is hypocritical for her to say that "we've been trying to prove ourselves good enough and this is a setback" (concerning the looking down upon ebonics.

That ebonics may be a "greater source of collective disgrace" in the african-american community is a sad truth. We always consider any sort of ebonics as "improper" and not suited for the work field. I happen to see an integration of both "languages" or "dialects" (whichever way you view it) that could cause tension in the future between different generations.

I thought it strange the tension the author felt was so great. She was happy her child handled the new situation so quickly and in such a good manner yet she was unhappy she adopted to Black English so quickly. If the author knows how to code-switch, I think she should have trusted in her daughter to learn also. It was odd that she didn't speak of students who had much trouble because of their lack of code-switching ability. (She only spoke of adults)

The fact that the workforce "cannot appreciate expertise" with Black English being spoken is unusual in today's world. Though communication is a huge aspect in "getting the job done," high production levels and less time on projects are usually wanted more. In an office where I worked over the summer, one woman spoke Black English, even in front of her boss, and her career with this company has not been sacrificed because of it.

Questions:

1. Baldwin's article claimed that Black English is a seperate language whereas Maya Angelou believed it was appalling to think so. Why is there such a difference in thought? Angelou continues to say that it makes people "not want to learn other languages" but why would this be?

2. The author embraces ebonics as a unifier of Black Americans but why would she say "how dare anyone suggest that ignorant sounding trash was 'our language?'"

3. The author says she must change her "natural self just to be adequate" yet further in the article she admits her use of ebonics. Did she actually change her "natural self?"

4. Could a solution to hearing only American Standard English speaking teachers be to incorporate teachers who use different dialects?

5. Is this tension that the author feels something that all African-Americans feel or it is something she feels because she is a professor? Are there other reasons for her confliction?

Posted by lcisyeich at 01:01 AM | Comments (0)

December 04, 2005

Response to Yasmin

Yasmin's question: Why do people decide to code-switch (change one's dialect)in language?

If I understood the author correctly, her daughter was able to "code-switch" between Black English (more than one form of it too) and Standard English. And as her mother, the author believed that in order for her daughter to succeed in many aspects of life, particularly in the workplace, she would need to know Standard English. I think it is similar to changing the way you speak with your friends versus how you might speak to a formal audience. You change your linguistical style, and it sounds like code-switching is the same thing, but taken to a whole new level with dialects.

Posted by lcishagan at 11:26 PM | Comments (0)

An answer to Yasmin's Question

Why is language a "political instrument"?

Language is a primary source of our identity. It is the vehicle by which we remind ourselves, often in the tongue of our forebears, of our past, our experience of the here and now and our hopes and dreams for the future. Language allows us to articulate this deeply personal experience and share it with many. On the surface language common to one sector of a population is a secret code for that sector but more deeply and far more importantly it serves as irrefutable evidence to its speakers and to the broader population, that the speakers are an independent group with a separate common experience and identity. In situations where sectors of the population have had land, and civil and human rights taken from them language is a valuable asset as it is difficult to remove since it is within us. And so in any situation where we seek to communicate a political ideal, reaffirm a common understanding, and convey a message our instrument, language, becomes a political one.

~ Nanette

Posted by lcissavides at 09:34 PM | Comments (0)

The Grammar of Our Blog

A prescriptive grammar is one that believes that the evolution of a language is a corrupt process. I notice that most of the posts not only reflect English as it would be spoken by us, rather than written, but also reflect a style of English that is used on computers. This style of English ignores rules of capitalization, punctuation, and often times spelling.

A prescriptive grammar would probably cringe at the use of slang that has been present since the beginning of the year, as well as incorrect sentence structure. The spelling would be criticized not only for the unintentional mispelling of words that we were probably too lazy to look up, but also for spelling that suggests how we would say a word (for example to stress one of the morphemes you repeat a letter over and over again like in the word "soooooooooo").

Our blog should definitely be appreciated because of the content of each post, rather than the actual grammar.

Posted by lcissullivan at 09:05 PM | Comments (0)

James Baldwin Response

Baldwin’s socio-political view of language is revolutionary and recognizes, at its core, how we search for and embrace identity. I find Baldwin’s observations about this need for and achievement of temporal identity astounding as he shows its power and effect in the life of African Americans. He draws a parallel between all languages when he recognizes how language “is the most vivid and crucial key to identity, and connects one with, or divorces one from, the larger, public, or communal identity.”

Baldwin states that “a language comes into existence by means of brutal necessity, and the rules of the language are dictated by what the language must convey.” Prior to reading this I thought of language acquisition as inevitably being the result of an innate human ability and had not considered the “brutal necessity” of situations such as slavery and oppression where it is undeniably evident that language, as Baldwin says, “is also a political instrument, means and proof of power.”

As Baldwin described the formation of the “black church,” it occurred to me that the role of religion in the formation of a black American English identity was positive. I find that ironic against the backdrop of colonization and the role religion played in stripping indigenous peoples across the globe of their cultural identity.

Baldwin combines an uncompromising, unpretentious truth telling with an insightfully poignant revelation of life behind the color lines. In his analogy of the mirror in front of which the oppressor “has been frozen for so long” he hints at the damage done to and prison created for not only the oppressed but also for the oppressor. I am left to wonder though if we would not do well to let the mirror smash and allow one another to see the reality across the line.

~ Nanette

Questions:

1. Baldwin makes the comment: “black people…created a language that permits the nation its only glimpse of reality.” Is this true and which reality does he speak of?
2. Should the oppressed reveal to the oppressor that which they are and risk the “smashing of that mirror,” as Baldwin puts it, “before which he has been frozen for so long”?
3. Is a language clearly based on another, a dialect of it? And why is this term viewed as patronizing by the author?
4. Is the author inferring something about white Americans when he says “We, the blacks,…are not inarticulate because we are not compelled to defend a morality that we know to be a lie”?

Posted by lcissavides at 08:53 PM | Comments (0)

Response to Freya's Question

Is this article at all irrevelant today because it was written in 1979?

I know that a lot racial tension still exists today in the U.S., especially between African Americans and Caucasians, but I feel that the U.S. in 2005 is a very different place than it was back in 1979. Baldwin describes the education of young black students as something that the majority of white Americans were not interested in. I feel like today that is not the case at all. Steps have been taken to ensure that the color of a student's skin does not affect the manner in which he or she receives an education, and although these steps are not 100% effective, they certainly have changed education drastically since 1979.

So I think that in regard to the educational issues Baldwin talks about, the article is absolutely irrevelant. However, his final paragraph sounds like something that would be written today. He points out that the U.S. does not acknowledge the fact that minorities are the ones filling our prisons and streets. I feel like this issue still exists today, and it is something that our country has done little to understand in the past 25 years.

Posted by lcissullivan at 08:44 PM | Comments (1)

Gramatarian's criticism

I think a harsh gramatarian would be mostly concerned with some of the informalities occuring in the posts, as well as maybe minor spelling mistakes. For example, am I spelling "occuring" right or is "occurring"? Considering I am not feeling motivated to check some of my words reflects in my posts and also in others. Many colliquial expressions, or expressions mostly used by the young population, are used as well, such as the phrase "he goes on to say". I noticed this is used quite often, and I don't have a problem with it but perhaps a gramatarian would because of its informal quality. In many of the posts we write as we speak using the words "like" and "sort of", sometimes in place for the words "similar" and "resembling" and sometimes to express an example or doubt or uncertainty. I don't think a harsh gramatarian would be down with that just like he wouldn't be down with me using the expression "down with that", probably because it is considered "uncultured" and "unintelligent."

Posted by lcisfreya at 08:41 PM | Comments (1)

Answer to one of Ariel's questions

Ariel's question: Isn't there a general American, and a general British dialect that speak for the majority of the citizens?

I believe there is a general dialect (or would it be accent...?) that others from a different country hear and that they cannot always detect the specific dialect within American or British English. There are certain phonetic qualities a language has that distinguishes it from another and these general similiarties are what make up the French language, the German, Italian, American, British, etc., etc. We are just hypersensitive to the differences between dialects within languages.

Posted by lcisfreya at 08:27 PM | Comments (0)

Baldwin's article

James Baldwin’s editorial is very well written. It flows smoothly and the language itself is interesting. His final quote is very to-the-point, “…it may very well be, that both the child and his elder have concluded that they have nothing whatever to learn from the people of a country that has managed to learn so little”. This quote is a good one to end on because it is thought-provoking.

Although I have not lived in enough places to have experience, I agree that our nation has not placed a lot of interest in educating minorities. This leads to a trail of tension, and is what leads to poverty. It is obvious that in minority towns (in general) the schools are much lower quality, and yet we as Americans do little about it. So, when he says that white people have learned “so little”, and have closed minds, he is, generally, correct.

As many people stereotype African Americans, this article seems to stereotype Caucasians as well. This is with good reason though because it is referring to them as a whole. The fact that there is so much historical baggage behind it is part of the making of this situation. Baldwin’s article brings our attention to the fact that we still have a long way to go for equality in society.

A few questions were raised in my mind as the article progressed. The one big one is: What makes Black English its own separate language? If white, black, Hispanics, etc. are able to communicate amongst each other all in the common language of English, then why is Black English a separate language? Wouldn’t that make it a dialect? We can all understand each other, at least for the most part, except for the pompous jerks who look down their nose at minority accents.

Also, a general question to ponder: in the formation of the United States, we have hurt so many ethnic groups, such as the Native Americans, and the Africans. So, why are we not trying harder to redeem ourselves by reaching out to them? Baldwin’s article does a good job of indirectly saying this.

Isn’t Black English hip now? Isn’t it the latest trend? I’m from Maine, the second whitest state in the country, so maybe I’m not getting it. But isn’t it ironic that we are gradually taking on the sayings found in Black English, but many of us still look down upon it?

Posted by lcishagan at 08:26 PM | Comments (0)

“No Kinda Sense” by Lisa Delpit

Comments:

Before reading this chapter, I don’t think I had a very good understanding of the debate behind the Ebonics controversy. Although we went over it in class, I like how the chapter brings new light to the issue because it is discussed from the point of view of someone who is experiencing a similar situation. I’m still ignorant when it comes to the topic, but I feel more informed now.

Seeing actual examples of Ebonics in written words also helped me understand the issue. I hadn’t thought much about it before, but to a child, hearing nothing but Black English at home, and trying to take a test in Standard English would be terrifying to the student.

I think Delpit is absolutely correct in that in order to teach a student a new dialect or any type of concept, the teacher must use a means that interests the student. I know that if I am interested in a subject, I tend to do better in the class, even if it requires more work than another easier but less interesting class.

“To speak out against the language that children bring to school means that we are speaking out against their mothers, that their mothers are not good enough to be a part of the school world. And in the African American community, talking about someone’s mother is the worst form of insult!” This quote is so true. At that age, children idolize their parents. Their parents know everything, and to indirectly tell the children that their parents are “not good enough” is heartbreaking.

On a lighter note, I enjoyed that Delpit added some humor in this chapter, such as the part when she explains how the black radio stations poked fun at the Oakland Policy with phrases such as “Hooked on Ebonics worked for me!”

Questions: Are the teachers who are telling these children that they cannot speak in Ebonics, in general, white? What does “chetto” sound like? I can’t imagine it from the description. Why were Atlanta’s Black Professionals against Ebonics? And was the NYT also against it because it published the ad for free?

Posted by lcishagan at 08:21 PM | Comments (0)

Chapter 5, Sociolinguistic Concepts

Comments:

The part in “Language and attitudes to language” that refers to teachers’ judgments about students who “look and sound intelligent” is interesting. I think teachers try not to do this, but it happens regularly, especially in bigger schools where teachers have less time to get to know the students one-on-one.

“Me Tarzan you Jane” is much different than saying “sort of”. Sort of is used when you’re in an informal setting and not quite sure of what you’re saying. The Tarzan quote refers to someone who doesn’t know much English.

It is daring of the author to say that certain languages would not be as well-suited as others to speak about particular topics. However, when you think about it, he’s right because it probably would be very difficult to explain civil engineering in Amazonian Indian language not because of some type of inferiority but because there is not a need for engineering words in their culture (I assume, based upon the author’s words).

It is an interesting point that “There is, in fact, no standard English accent, and standard English may be spoken with any accent”. We can all understand each other, no matter whether it is a British accent or Southern accent.

“An adult’s passive vocabulary, for example, typically includes several hundred words which he understands but does not use.” I never thought about this before, but I bet it’s true. Many of these words are probably from other dialects and we would think it out of character for us to use them, but we do understand them.

Questions: Were the professor’s recordings that we listened to in class inspired by the Giles experiment? How different are the dialects between upper-middle class British and the farmers from Devon? Why would they find so much trouble understanding each other? **see paragraph #4 above-- does he mean that there are also no general accents in terms of countries? Isn’t there a general American dialect, and a general British dialect that speak for the majority of citizens?

Posted by lcishagan at 08:18 PM | Comments (0)

Black English

I can tell that James Baldwin is passionate about this topic of Black English because he writes with a tone of anger. The essay conveys his frustration with the way in which the world views blacks and their use of English. He writes in a very personal manner that speaks to people differently depending on their background and experiences in life.

I understand to the best of my ability what Baldwin is trying to say, and that is that Black English should most definitely be distinguished as its own language, rather than a mere dialect. Baldwin actually seems insulted at the fact that most people consider it a dialect. He feels that language is basically a result of people needing to survive, and different languages arise based on the different threats that people have to face in their struggle to avoid death. In his opinion, Black English came about as a way for blacks to communicate without whites fully understanding what they were saying. This form of communication was often the deciding factor in life and death situations, therefore it qualifies a language.

Baldwin sheds light on a topic that I never really gave much thought to; I always knew that Black English sounded different from White English, but I thought that the major difference was just in pronounciation. He emphasizes that words said in White English could take on a completely different meaning when said in Black English. This made me think that perhaps whenever I heard Black English, despite the fact that I thought I understood it, I really didn't know what was truly being said.

I thought Baldwin's opinion of the education received by young black children was also eye-opening. He claims that whites are only interested in educating black children if those children deny the experiences they have that are the essence of their identity. These children enter a "limbo" between black and white, but are unable to embrace either side. This behavior convinces Baldwin that an education from people who demand such a change of identity is not even an education worth receiving; or in other words, black children are better off not learning from whites in this way.

Some questions I have about Baldwin's essay are: If Black English should not be considered a dialect because it evolved based on the need to survive, as all languages did, then is there even such a thing as a dialect, or is every variation of a language a language in itself? Besides terms that were borrowed, how has Black English shaped White English? Is there a solution regarding how young black children can maintain their identity while still being educated in a white world? How does Black English permit the United States with its only glimpse of reality?

Posted by lcissullivan at 07:56 PM | Comments (0)

James Baldwin article

I feel I understand for the most part what James Baldwin is trying to convey and it ties in with all of the other readings as well. Basically, what I understand is that language is the key connector between people and when that language is lost or taken away so is the connection. Baldwin believes a defining characteristic of African-Americans is their language and if this language is lost they would be "in limbo", not black but never white.

Baldwin speaks of the differences in dialect that evolve in different countries, he uses Francophone countries as an example, and that someone from Senegal would have trouble conversing with someone from Paris even though French is the language of both countries. This is interesting because I recently met someone from Senegal and when he spoke to me in French I could barely understand what he was saying because his French was so different sounding than what I am used to hearing in the classroom. The same could be said of the differences between Dutch and Afrikaans. Afrikaans stems from Dutch but is totally different language in that the circumstances under which is was formed are different than Dutch. Now, I am not sure exactly what the circumstances are but my hypothesizing is the Dutch spoken in South Africa was affected by the native populations around it and new words had to have been formed for things that existed in South Africa but not in the Netherlands.

Baldwin talks of language forming from necessity and the need to convey ideas through a language the whites could not understand. He says it also has relevance to himself for communcating with other African-Americans in the presence of white people so the white people cannot understand them. However, I think this was more of a necessity when the article was written (1979) and maybe not so much now because there is less segregation and racism today. I think it is more culturally significant today than ever because it is something African-Americans have that white people will never acquire. They can try and try to "act black" or "speak black" but usually they are labelled as posers. Black english is something white people can't touch.

I found it interesting that the certain words and phrases, like jazz and Beat Generation, came from black english and that their meanings completely changed once the white population began to use them. I suppose by mentioning this Baldwin is illustrating how whites manipulated blacks and censored their culture and ultimately made it thier own. I mean I didn't know jazz was actually an African-American word so I suppose this illustrates the white supremacy occuring then and when the article was written.

Questions: What does Baldwin mean by "a morality that we know to be a lie"?

Is Baldwin implying white people are narcissitic with his smash the mirror metaphor?

Is this article at all irrelevant today because it was written in 1979?

How do languages outwit death?

Posted by lcisfreya at 02:10 PM | Comments (0)

Response to Christina's Question

Christina's question was "what would Americans have sounded like without Black English?"

I believe there would have been less of a conversion of language. In class we talked about the fact that it takes longer for syntax of a language to change. I believe Black English shortened this time because of the fast introduction of the language and its use in everyday culture. Lexicon would also be different because Black English uses a lot of shortened words or new words that shorten previous words. An example of this is "yo" which is shorter than "hello" and is considered more improper. (Maybe improper words are considered improper because of their backgrounds...hmm.) So, without Black English, we would probably still have more "old english" words or even longer words than what we use today. Moving on, I also believe there is a connection between gestures and a language. White English centuries ago would be a lot more formal and wouldn't include much touching. In today's culture we touch each other's arms and are more expressive to the listener. Without Black English I am sure there would be more of a physical distance between the listener and speaker. Also, I am sure there would be more arms at the side then gesturing hands during conversation.

Posted by lcisyeich at 01:45 PM | Comments (0)

James Baldwin Article

James Baldwin’s article refutes the idea of Black English as only a dialect. He continuously gives examples of languages considered dialects and why they are not only dialects. He also continuously defines what a language is. Language, in general, “reveals the speaker.” It allows the people to “evolve a language in order to describe and control their circumstances.” Baldwin’s example is of the language of French. He goes on to say a man in one part of a country does not speak the same French as another man in a different part of the country, nevertheless, these men couldn’t understand another speaker from a whole different country that speaks French. He justifies this by saying that they all have different “realities to articulate.” To Baldwin, articulation (describing) is synonymous with controlling their surroundings. Furthermore, Baldwin writes that language is a political power because of the strong resistance of each of these people to keep their language. Their determination reveals their identity that can “connect one with, or divorce one from, the larger, public, or communal identity.” Furthermore, language is power because it reveals these identities so specifically. Certain languages (all English in Baldwin’s example of England) reveal where one comes from. This area would have particular families, schools, and range of salaries. Furthermore, one’s language will reveal how young one is, one’s self-esteem, and even one’s future.

Even though one can be judged by a language, ironically, the judges will adopt the judged language. Although it will be called something new in order to make it acceptable, it is fully from these judged people. Baldwin’s examples were of the Jazz Age and Beat Generation. White people adopted Black English terms and even acted as if they were Black. This leads us directly into the controversy over whether Black English is a language.

To Baldwin, Black English is not merely a dialect. The language has effected American culture and converted it into what it is. Because it is so obvious that Black English is used, Americans cannot deny its being. Blacks came to America speaking many different languages and needed to find a similar one to unite them and to describe to each other what was happening around them. The bibles given to them were the only article that united them and thus, it was used to create communication. “A language comes into existence by means of brutal necessity, and the rules of the language are dictated by what the language must convey.” There was obviously a “brutal necessity” to not only speak English now that they were in an English country, but to convert it into something that united them and excluded those who tried to suppress them. Blacks needed to make the language their own to convey the emotions they felt and make it known to each other. Baldwin uses an example of himself to describe the necessity for the language. The language not only united all blacks but also protected them. The speed and unusualness (to the white people) of the language allowed for Blacks to help protect each other if they did something “wrong” such as stand in front of a white man.

Just as the languages in Wales and France and other countries defend their language for all the reasons described above, the Blacks are also fighting for the same thing. They know their language to be just so and will keep using it as thus. The reason for this wanting to call the Black English language a dialect is because of education levels. A Black child “cannot be taught by anyone who despises him” and the White people did despise the black race. Furthermore, a Black child cannot be taught to learn White English because it would force the child to “repudiate his experience” and furthermore, his/her identity as a Black child will be taken away. Because of this “failure” to learn what the White people expect but do not give, Black people are still repressed and it is blamed on dislike due to their “inability” to learn something not taught.

Personally, I believe Baldwin has a compelling argument with many truths in it. I never looked at Black English as a totally separate language because it is not separate from English. I believe Baldwin believes that a language is different if it serves a different purpose. Black English did serve a different purpose than White English but now we can understand each other and the purpose is less involved. The date of this article proves there is less evidence in this article for today’s world. Now, White English is molded by Black English and vice versa.

Questions:

1. Are Black people still looked down upon today for the same reasons? E.g. Baldwin says that Black people are looked down upon because White teachers do not want to teach them proper English.
2. Why should Baldwin say that he is appalled by the fact that White teachers do not want to teach Black children if he then says learning the language would take away identity?
3. Why is describing a language and controlling a language synonymous in the article?
4. Why does Baldwin put down the fact that White people adopted the black language? For the language’s survival, wouldn’t that be better?

Posted by lcisyeich at 01:40 PM | Comments (0)

Response to Lauren's Question

Lauren asked, “Why don't schools in linguistically diverse areas do bi-lingual programs, after all the primary goal of a school should be to meet its student’s needs,”.

I asked myself this same question as well as I was reading this essay. Certainly it seems that if bilingual programs are the most efficient way to learn a new language, schools should provide the resources necessary for them. Yet this is where, I believe, based on research that I have read, the problem lies. I did my first research report on different methods of second language acquisition. The disadvantage of the bilingual approach, which is also known as the grammar-translation method, is that it is often difficult to combine an individual’s first and second language. Schools simply do not have the resources, monetarily, mentally, or physically to educate the 5.5 million English-language learners in the United States. (Black 36). Of course, this information is extremely disheartening because if this method is as advantageous as experts claim it is schools should be able to find the resources necessary to at least move towards the bilingual method. I definitely agree with your concerns Lauren!

Posted by lciscotis at 01:03 AM | Comments (0)

December 03, 2005

Passage Response

I think language is key in staying connected to a person's root culture because it is the common ground everyone in a certain culture have. If one lost their language then they lose connection with their native culture and a part of their identity. The passage speaks to me more so in the experience of someone else I know as opposed to personal experience.

My mother came to the United States from the Netherlands with my father maybe 25 or 30 years ago. I am sure she has some grasp of English in order to communicate with my dad because I know his Dutch is nothing to brag about (my sister and I snicker whenever he attempts to impress my mom with his Dutch). However, it must have been incredibly hard for her to live in a country without speaking her native language and even more so considering many Americans do not know any other second language that she knows, like German or French. She was forced, though willingly because she chose to move here, to become fluent in English for a means of survival.

However, I have never considered my mother's struggle in the terms Joshua Fishman uses. I know that right now living in France or the Netherlands and speaking French or Dutch all day long would give me a headache. I would become so stressed out from trying to communicate ideas and thoughts I might not know how to articulate in French/Dutch but do know how in English. My mother probably felt very vulnerable and insecure when she moved here because it was not her native language and language, to me, is the most significant or apparent manifestation of cultural differences. It can both alienate someone who is not a native speaker and embrace if they are. I know my mother felt alienated, and still does though she is fluent in English now, because she had no one to connect with culturally and linguistically.

Even now my mom gets very upset and sad from time to time when she misses Holland or my sister and I gently tease her about the pronunciation of her words. She takes offense because it is a sign she does not completely fit into this country and it makes her miss Holland where she does have a common ground with everyone--language. She becomes lonesome because she cannot do what feels most natural to her and that is communicate with people in her native language and who are part of her native culture. Following upon this, I think the fact that both my sister and I can heighten this frustration and loneliness when we cannot or do not speak with her in Dutch. I hope she doesn't feel she went wrong somewhere when my sister and I "lost" our fluency in Dutch but I feel that I went wrong in pushing Dutch away and thus pushing some of my culture away. I regret it though it is only further conviction for me to re-learn Dutch and connect with my mom so she feels better connected within the U.S.

Posted by lcisfreya at 09:16 PM | Comments (0)

“If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?” Response

James Baldwin says, “The brutal truth is that the bulk of the white people in America never had any interest in educating black people, except as this could serve white purposes. It is not the black child’s language that is in question, it is not his language that is despised: It is his experience,” (2). This statement is very interesting, especially in light of recent education advances and policies. Controversial policies such as George Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Act” promise to educate every child equally and adequately. With this in mind, James Baldwin is not considering the entire spectrum of education.

However, this article was published on July 29, 1979, which increases the validity of this statement and definitely puts a new perspective on the article. Possibly, at this time, Baldwin’s statement would be correct. It is certainly true, that in the past blacks were not educated with the same attention that whites were. Still, I do not believe that Baldwin’s statement is true any longer.

I also question the manner with which Baldwin says, “…white people in America never had any interest in educating black people,” (1). It is my belief that by saying this, he is playing into the assumptions that he hopes to expose. He is giving whites license to supervise of the education of blacks while simultaneously denying blacks the right to educate themselves. Essentially he is presenting a black community in need of supervision and guidance.

Another part of the essay which was especially interesting for me was when Baldwin said, “To open your mouth in English is…”to put your business in the street”: You have confessed your parents, your youth, your school, your salary, your self-esteem, and, alas, your future,” (2). I enjoyed this statement because it summarizes, with humor, what we have been discussing the past few weeks. Language can reveal so much about a person, sometimes correct, sometimes incorrect. This statement also brings linguistic profiling to mind. Baldwin is suggesting that residents of England, in particular, can determine anything about a person from their use of language. Similarly, linguistic profiling makes judgments about different characteristics of individuals based on their language. Baldwin also acknowledges that individuals who do not come from England will have difficulty understanding the difference between styles of language and the implications, true or false, that they convey.

Questions

1.Why does Baldwin seem to play into some of the stereotypes which he attempts to expose?

2.Baldwin says, “He [Whites] cannot understand it. This understanding would reveal to him too much about himself, and smash that mirror before which he has been frozen for so long,” (2). Why does Baldwin feel that his language, and that of other blacks, is a secret from the whites? In this statement, is he trying to expose the arrogance or the controlling nature of whites?

3.Baldwin says, “A language comes into existence by brutal necessity,” (2). Is necessity the only reason for a new language? Or are there other reasons which may fuel the emergence of a new language?

4.I find the end of Baldwin’s article confusing and I have trouble tying it to the rest of the article. Does anyone have any ideas?

Posted by lciscotis at 05:27 PM | Comments (0)

For Better or Worse

Here's a comic that I found in the newspaper a couple of days ago. I thought it might be useful for someone's project or just for enjoyment. Enjoy!!

http://www.fborfw.com/strip_fix/archives/001532.php

Posted by lciscotis at 04:19 PM | Comments (0)

James Baldwin Article

In his article James Baldwin’s writes, “Language, incontestably, reveals the speaker” Through out this semester’s reading and writing and discussions in the course I came to an understanding that language is the most significant way of communication and expression that can be used to state one’s identity, personality and everything beyond. In my opinion, a great illustration of both James Baldwin and Bernard Shaw’s point is played out in “Pygmalion”. In this play Higgins improves not only Eliza’s appearance but he literally changes the way Eliza speaks and behaves. By the time that her spoken language was completely different she had become a different person who used “higher class” English. However, changing her language affected her life. As she describes, she was not who she was, even though she now belonged to better social group. As her language changed, she changed as well. Her language became more and more grammatical, correct, and appropriate for where she was.
In some cases it might be true for people of different races and social level to be able to successfully learn how to speak in different dialect. When Baldwin writes, “Language also far more dubiously, is meant to define the other—and, in this case, the other is refusing to be defined by a language that has never been able to recognize him” he is not talking about language as foreign language. But he is using the term ‘language’ as in language that people in certain groups use to communicate and express themselves. I think that we all have our own languages. How we say things to others may not be repeated. Therefore our speech and language reflect our personalities just as we have our unique version of personalities.
Baldwin also argues that people from different regions have different languages. One would automatically assume that they might have different dialects. But Baldwin didn’t use the term dialect but instead used more broader and general term; language. People have different life styles and realities therefore their expressions and thoughts differ from one another. Moreover, “they each have very different realities to articulate, or control.”
I agree with the author that “language is also a political instrument, means, and proof of power”. It seems that one of the most important goals for politicians is to make people to have faith in you and believe what they are saying. Language is a powerful instrument to convince people. Often times the most successful leaders are those who are great public speakers. They find the most “common” language of their people to touch the people’s hearts and connect with them. If the politicians are able to convince their people they have the power in their hands.

Q1: What is Baldwin suggesting by, “People evolve a language in order to describe and thus control their circumstances,” Q2: Why language might become a political issue in France? What would that issue be?
Q3: What does “Beat to his socks” mean?
Q4: What is Baldwin suggesting by, “Now, no one can eat his cake, and have it, too, and it is late in the day to attempt to penalize black people for having created a language than permits the nation it sonly glimpse of reality, a language without which the nation would be even more whipped than it is”? Q5: What “understanding” is Baldwin talking about that white men cannot understand and “this understanding would reveal to him too much about himself, and smash that mirror…”

Posted by lcisbold at 03:18 PM | Comments (1)

Chapter 3

Comments

1. Most black people love and use aspects of Ebonics at all times because they are "with their own" and "revel in rhythmns of cadences of connection." However, many feel oppressed by society, and when around white people they switch to a more "proper" way of talking. I understood how Delpit's daughter, Maya was feeling. It was one thing to be the only black girl in a "proper all white private school," but she also had to tackle with the language barrier. When you don't fit in, it is onlly natural for one to question themeselves. I went through a period of self questioning myself. It is hard for people who are not the minority to understand this.

2. Language has a major influential role in society. When society is finally ready to see beyond skin color to access intelectual competence of black people regardless of how they speak, the world will be a better, more accepting place. Code-switching is a coping mechanism in which they switch between forms of speech.

3. After various experiments, it was determined that unconscious acquisition is more effective when a student is motivated. Furthermore, students don't identify with teachers who question their intellegence or with a curriculum that ignores their existence. They have little opportunity to speak up and when they do they are worried about being corrected.

4. Standard dialects are embedded in instruction that has little connection to children's cultural lives and personal interests. In areas that do not bring in the children's various languages or experiences, the children view themselves as defective because their personal feelings are not a part of their education. I believe this is completely true, if the natural language of a child is ignored, how does one expect the child to succeed in an academic environment that supresses their voice?

5. When instruction is stripped of children's cultural legacies then they are forced to believe that the world and all good things in it were created by others. This leaves students further ailienated from the school and its instructional goals. They are more likely to view themselves as inadequate. Not too long ago, there was a huge debate at Boston University about whether American Sign Language was a true language or not. This is ironic because Boston University has a strong deaf studies program and has a number of deaf students attending. Anyway, I remember being frustrated, and thinking what more does society want to prove that my own, natural language is in fact a language. How dare they question and say that American Sign Language has no culture of its own. They had no basis for the claims they were making. So I feel that I can easily relate to Delpit and her daughter, Maya.

Questions

1. Why do some people feel that Ebonics is not good enough to be a language.. what is their basis of this judgement?

2. Why were African American linguistic experts not consulted during the Okland School debates? I would expect these experts to be the primary source of information and resources.

3. What does it take and what does it mean for a person to "talk right?"

4. Why do people think of Ebonics as a cognitive deficiency?

5. Why don't schools in linguistically diverse areas do bi-lingual programs, after all the primary goal of a school should be to meet its students needs.

Posted by lcissearls at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)

Chapter 5

Comments:

1. No language or dialect is inherently superior or inferior to any other, and all languages and dialects are suited to the needs of the community they serve. Needless to say, dialects are inherently systematic and rule governed, deeply organized systems of great complexity.

2. It is almost impossible to hear someone speak without immediately drawing conclusions about social class, background, level of education and what part of the country someone comes from. This is a linguistic stereotype. People of Standard English are percieved as more ambitious, more intellegent, more self confident and more reliable. This is a social fact because people judge one another's worth on the basis of language.

3. The official definition of dialect is the language variety used in particular geographical region by a particular social class group. Also, in Britain the regional and social dimensions are related. The higher up the social class scale one goes, the less one encounters regional variation in speech. This accounts for the reason why British people are so sensitive to social implications of the language a person uses. This is often documented in movies and plays, for example Pygmalion and My Fair Lady.

4. People's way of talking can change according to the topic. Furthermore, contemporary linguistics is strictly descriptive and describes what people do. It does not mean that "anything goes." Speakers have assymetrical linguistic systems which means they can perciece and understand linguistic distinctions which they do not (or cannot themselves make.

5. There is a correlation between a child's language and their education. A child's language may be a disadvantage in their own educational progress, not because the language is deficient, but merely because it is different. This is often reflected in test scores of children.

Questions

1. Why is the term "lazy" attributed to regional or social dialects? Is this a British way of classifying language and separation of class?

2. Have there been any experiments done about linguistic stereotyping in American Sign Language?

3. If people know that no language is superior or inferior to any other then why do people still continue to discriminate people by their use of language?

4. Are there any dialects in history that have formally become a language?

5. Why are languages with writing systems considered higher and more functional than those without? ASL is an example of a language without a writing system, and I often feel at times that I can express more with ASL than with English.

6. Do you think that people have become more or less tolerant of linguistic diversity over the years?

Posted by lcissearls at 02:31 PM | Comments (0)

Chapter 3 Response "No Kinda Sense"

Comments:

1) It is interesting how in order to fit in to a certain social context, people will change their way of speech to fit the social standard. This example was given of Lisa Delpit's daughter Maya, who when moved from a predominantly white school to one that was predominantly black, changed her speech and primarily used African American English or Ebonics. I myself have been in this same situation, because I know that I speak differently to my black friends than I would my white friends. These are distinct differences that I notice in my speech.

2) Delpit mentions that speaking ebonics or having a "ghetto" dialect of english can hinder African Americans from being able to get good jobs or go to college, which was one of her major concerns about her own daughter. I think that to a certain extent this is true, because most occupational positions are based on the way you speak whether you have good work ethic or not. If a person cannot speak correctly according to that particular job, then they will be at risk of not being hired. This is a current issue that affects the lives of many African Americans.

3) In order for children to accurately learn standard English, they should not be punished for speaking in a manner that is seen as "gramatically incorrect" by their teachers. They should be given constructive criticism so that they know what to work on in their speech. Punishment because of linguistic mistakes inhibits children from learning. I think that if less children are considered outcasts, because of their language then it will be easier for them to learn standard English.

4) I think that it is easier for students to learn about something that they can relate to, but I don't think that it should be used as a way to make learning easier for them. Students, no matter what their background is, all have the ability to learn so the focus should be on allowing students the equal opportunity to learn and not trying to lower standards in order to improve test scores.

5) Culture is an influential part of our society. Everyone is faced with people from different cultures, as they identify with their own culture. Since culture is so important it should also be of great priority in schools, because addressing each students culture in particular will make them feel more a part of the school and want to be a participant in the learning experience. I think that many teachers fail to address this issue, which is why there are many students who perform poorly in school as a result of this. A loss of culture is a loss of connection, and that connection should be found by every student.

Questions:

1) Why do people decide to code-switch (change one's dialect)in language?

2) Was the ebonics controversy more of a racial issue or a linguistic issue?

3) How can teachers improve the way that children learn standard English? Is there any right way to go about this?

4) Is it more beneficial for teachers to teach students based on something that they can relate to, or is it a way for teachers to lower the standards for their students, because they consider them to be inferior on a certain level?

5) If the "language form, after all, is merely one small part of a desired curriculum", then why does it appear to be a major part of the curriculum in schools?

--Yasmin

Posted by lcisperez at 01:45 PM | Comments (0)

Chapter 5 Response "Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts"

Comments:

1) It was interesting how Michael Stubbs examined the relationship between language and education. This was based on the assumption that a language that deviates from what is deemed "standard english" leads to the educational failure of children. He showed how this assumption mostly comes from people who linguistically stereotype children and believe that they can associate their use of language with how well of an education they will be able to receive. I think that this is an unfair and misleading belief, because the way that a person speaks cannot affect the way that they learn. However, it is true that many people make judgements about others based on the way that they speak.

2) Stubbs mentions the social implications that are involved with a person's accent and dialect. I think that this is an important aspect, because it has a lot to do with how people are chosen for jobs or other things that are work-related. For example, people who are newscasters usually do not have accents and they all have a standard way of speaking. This is because it would be difficult for some people to understand them if they have a thick accent and were trying to present a news event. Even though these people are from different regions, they all sound the same which makes the delivering of news a lot eaisier.

3) I think that it is interesting that many people still go along with the myth that primitive languages still do exist. Even though some languages are not as widely used and are in danger of extinction, they should not be considered to be primitive. All languages have some level of complexity and are based on a particular linguistic system.

4) Stubbs mentions how hard it is to define the term "standard english". This is basically the form of English that is used as a form of communication among different languages and also that is taught in schools. English is used in this way almost as a currency, so that people can exchange information using a system that has a specific set of rules and governs linguistic interaction.

5) I think that it's sad how some teachers still have the attitude that some of their students may be educationally inferior based upon their linguistic ability. I think that this claim should be disregarded, especially if the student is of good academic standings and is able to prove that they are capable of learning. A person's level of comprehension should not be judged by their linguistic background.

Questions:

1) Why do people consider some languages "lazy"?

2) Is linguistic profiling really useful?

3) What makes linguistic stereotypes so powerful?

4) Why are some languages more functional or highly developed than others? How can you tell?

5) Why do we still use some words in our speech even though we were taught that they are not gramatically correct?

--Yasmin

Posted by lcisperez at 01:20 PM | Comments (0)

Chapter 3 "No Kinda Sense" Response

Comments

1. I was stunned by Delpit’s reaction to her Maya’s requests for plastic surgery to make her lips smaller and her beliefs that Maya was, “…sinking into some sort of emotional abyss,” (54). I was truly surprised that she took her daughter’s requests as seriously as she did. I feel that this is normal behavior for a pre-teenager, to suffer at the hands of other, more “powerful” students. Although some of this could certainly be attributed to the fact that Maya was one of only a few black students in the school, I do not feel it is abnormal for a pre-teen to feel like an outcast, to feel as if they are different than everyone else. This is the harsh reality of many schools, but most students, I believe, grow out of this phase quickly and grow into their own selves.

2. I found Delpit’s description of the New York Times advertisement featuring Martin Luther King extremely interesting. The advertisement was so powerful, to combine Martin Luther King, a powerful, influential leader, with Ebonics, a language that is often considered unprofessional. But, the juxtaposition of both shows society that Ebonics is just as efficient and acceptable as any other form of language.

3. This article can be easily connected to the Pygmalion Effect we discussed in relation to “My Fair Lady”. Delpit said, “What happens when we do so, when we convince them that they come from brilliance, when we encourage them to understand their amazing potential? When they recognize that we believe in them, then they come to trust us, to identify with us, and to emulate us,” (46). Essentially, Delpit is saying that if we trust and support our students, they will grow. This is a perfect example of the Pygmalion Effect because those who are expected to grow academically, socially, and emotionally will grow.

4. Delpit said, “Teachers seldom know much about the children’s lives and communities outside of the classroom and either don’t know how or aren’t willing to connect instruction to issues that matter to students, their families or their community. Nowhere is the student’s very personhood acknowledged or celebrated,” (41). I completely disagree with this statement. Every single teacher I have ever had cared about me as a person even more than they cared about me as a student. They were all interested in my personal life, my family, my friends, my interests. I even had a few very memorable teachers who went the extra mile, becoming friends with my parents, friends my friends, friends with my siblings. I find it extremely disheartening that Delpit does not put more confidence in teachers. Surely, many teachers have more students than they are capable of teaching effectively, yet I am very doubtful that a teacher would not make an effort to get to know a student better.

5. I was really interested in Deplit’s attempts to create a lesson based on student’s interests. I think that this is an amazing way to get students involved in learning and, more importantly, make them realize the real-world implications of their learning. In general, I think this is the biggest flaw with education in general. Students are learning so much, but they do not how or where to use this knowledge. Connecting learning to the real-world makes it even more powerful.

Questions

1. Why does Delpit feel it is necessary to move her daughter to a new school, mid-year, when, it is my belief, her emotions were those of a typical pre-teen experience? (See Comment #1.)

2. Why does Delpit have so little faith in teachers in terms of their interest in students?

3. It is difficult for me to establish Delpit’s views on Ebonics, as she seems to go back and forth. What exactly is her opinion?

4. Delpit comments that African American, “…children come to believe that there is nothing in their heritage to connect to schooling and academic success,” (46). Is this true? Personally, I think there are a lot of African American role models that students can look up to. Am I wrong?

5. Delpit seems to be a famous, well-know, accepted linguist. Yet, she still has trouble compromising her heritage and her profession. Why is this?

Posted by lciscotis at 12:51 PM | Comments (1)

December 02, 2005

Response to Lauren's Question

1. Why does Baldwin believe that the era of black slavery in America would have been shorter if black people had been able to speak to each other?

I think that the answer to this question is that the era would have been shorter, because black people would have had more opportunities to communicate with each other. I learned that since slaves were taken from different parts of Africa that there were very distinct dialect and language differences that prevented them from being able to talk to each other.

Black English is partially a result of this miscommunication, because many slaves learned English from some whites who were willing to teach them, or from stolen books that were written in English. Sometimes, because most blacks were not allowed to be taught, they taught each other and found other ways of communicating. This is where a lot of black church hymns and black slang comes from.

I think that Baldwin is basically trying to make the point that slavery wouldn't have lasted so long if black slaves had been given more opportunities to become educated.

--Yasmin

Posted by lcisperez at 11:57 PM | Comments (0)

James Baldwin Article

This article is very powerful and makes a variety of claims concerning dialects differences and then relating it to race. One of the most powerful statements in this article was "a country unable to face why so many of the non-white are in prison, or on the needle, or standing, futureless, in the streets--it may very well be that both the child, and his elder, have concluded that they have nothing whatever to learn from the people of a country that has managed to learn so little." I came up with two different interpretations of this statement. The first was that colored people are at a disadvantage, because they have no one to teach them. The second was that colored people do not want to learn from people who have learned nothing about different races. There are also many other interpretations of this quote. I think that for the most part this quote is not true, because many people of color have opportunities, however there is still disparity over the education of minorities.

Baldwin makes the point that even though people speak the same language (the example that he used was French), it is still difficult for people to understand each other, because of different dialects. This can cause frustration among people, or dialect superiority, where people consider their dialect to be superior to other dialects. This superiority complex is a flaw that people have, and use to sometimes look down upon other people's manner of speaking. This issue is also connected to race.

Baldwin also explains that Black English was influential in the english used by white americans. He claims that white americans adopted some words that were later used in music, like that of jazz. I think that this is true to to a certain extent and some genres of music are a good example to show this. This is true for R&B where words are shortened "going clubbing" becomes "goin' clubbin'". Usually R&B singers of all races use these contructs. This is also true for white rappers.

Another quote from Balwdin's article says "the brutal truth is that the bulk of the white people in America never had any interest in educating black people, except as this could serve white purposes". I think that this quote was far from the truth, because it makes it appear as though white people had no desire to educate black people. This some white people, and not white people as a whole. I think that Baldwin should have also addressed some positive issues in his article, about the achievements of colored people as a result of their education and language.

Questions

1) What does Baldwin mean by the quote "the other is refusing to be defined by a language that has never been able to recognize him."?

2) What are the realities that people have to articulate and control?

3) Why is language a "political instrument"?

4) How is black language a "glimpse of reality"?

--Yasmin

Posted by lcisperez at 11:19 PM | Comments (0)

Twilight in Los Angeles

Twilight in Los Angeles was basically a depiction of different races of people in Los Angeles during the riots and beating of Rodney King in 1992. This depiction was achieved by Anne Deavre Smith in this film by playing the role of several people who were involved in either the riot or events that were carried out during that time. I thought that her depiction of people that she had interviewed during the riot was very interesting. She portrayed the anger and confusion that was occuring during that time and all of the emotions that were prevalent at the time.

It was easy to tell what race she was portraying, because of the speech that she used when she was trying to be black, korean, or mexican, and the actions that she used to express the emotion of that person. She would speak more nasally and stand up straighter when she was trying to portray a white person. When she was trying to imitate a black person she would slouch more and have looser movements in her shoulders and hands. She would also mispronounce some words or talk in slang. For a mexican person, she would speak in an accent and place more emphasis on words with "r's" in her speech. She would also throw her hands around a lot more to prove a point or get the audiences attention.

Anne Smith was efficient at getting her message across, except for the fact that it sometimes became confusing when trying to figure out what person she was trying to imitate. This was because she would try to imitate several people at one time, and go back and forth between them. This kind of made her performance confusing and I couldn't follow what she was trying to say. Smith showed in this movie that the riots affected the morale of the community and turned races against each other. Everyone was affected in some way, and it showed that racial tension still did exist and that there was room for improvement.

--Yasmin

Posted by lcisperez at 10:21 PM | Comments (1)

If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?

Baldwin explains that the argument of whether Black English is considered a language or not “has nothing to do with the language itself but with the role of language” (Baldwin 1). Language defines a person and allows a person to be recognized. Each person’s language evolves overtime as a response not only to societal changes, but also to necessity. For example, sometimes, a person must tweak his or her language in order to converse with another dialect.

Black English is maintained and studied because many people do not want it to die out, just like the Basque and Welsh’s determination to keep their language alive and spoken. Even though these languages are being preserved, it is an interesting concept that some of these languages were forbidden to be spoken, and if spoken there would be harsh consequences. In this way, the language that someone speaks is a representation of their identity. A language or dialect can be pinpointed to certain regions, and each region or country has a rich history. This background and history is immediately linked to the person that speaks the language.

Baldwin writes, “a language comes into existence by means of brutal necessity, and the rules of the language are dictated by what the language must convey” (2). Black English, in particular, developed because of the Black church. Blacks from many different places in the world were pushed together on slave boats to come to America. In order to speak to each other, they had to merge languages and create a language that was not only unique to their society, but also could be used as a means to communicate with each other. Baldwin even remembers standing next to a white man and being told to speak fast in order to confuse the white man. So, essentially, Black English was used as a means to converse without the whites knowing about which they were speaking.

Finally, Baldwin cannot understand why Black English would not be considered a language. This language has its roots in history. Baldwin believes that the truth of the matter is that no white person ever felt responsible to actually teach the blacks a language, and when they were taught proper English, their teachers despised them. After all, a child that is taught English by teachers that despise him will not learn anything. He/she will revert back to their native tongue, so in a sense, Black English is the only way in which these people could communicate.

In the end, the inability for whites to teach blacks English has brought about many of the social struggles that blacks have even today. If they are in a society that still does not accept them, even for their language, how are they able to function? Without support from our own country, hope is lost. This may be the cause of so many blacks in the streets. They don’t know how to deal with a society that seems to have given up on them. It is incredibly sad to think about.

Questions:

1)In one of Baldwin’s paragraphs, he, in particular was forced to speak a language so fast that the whites could not hear or understand him. If the whites did stop to think about what the blacks said, they would be revealing a certain identity about themselves, that they actually took the time to listen and understand “black talk”. Baldwin writes, “This understanding would reveal to him too much about himself, and smash that mirror before which he has been frozen for so long” (Baldwin 2) What does this imply?

2)What would Americans have sounded like if there had been no Black English?

3)What does this quote actually mean: We, the blacks, are in trouble, certainly, but we are not doomed, and we are not inarticulate because we are not compelled to defend a morality that we know to be a lie” (Baldwin 2)?

4)Are so many non-whites truly in jail because “both the child and his elder have concluded that they have nothing whatever to learn from the people of a country that has managed to learn so little” (Baldwin 3)?

5)[In connection with the previous question]: What exactly has this country learned so little about? Just equality or a myriad of aspects of life in general?

-Christina

Posted by lcisgancarz at 10:05 PM | Comments (0)

Response to Brenna's Question

Question: Stubbs touched upon the difference between accent and dialect, but I was not really satisfied with his conclusions. What exactly is the difference between dialect and accent?

Answer: Everybody has a dialect and an accent and in most cases, people who have the same accents have the same dialects. However, this are distinct differences between the two terms. According to dictionary.com, a dialect is "a regional or social variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists" and an accent is "the relative prominence of a particular syllable of a word by greater intensity or by variation or modulation of pitch or tone." In other words, a dialect is defined by the words, the syntax and the accent, which is how the words are pronounced. Therefore, your dialect includes your accent, but I wonder, is it possible to have different accents in a single dialect? Theoretically I think it is possible, but I can't think of any examples.

-Jessica F.

Posted by lcisfaria at 09:56 PM | Comments (0)

humble response to katie's question

-What makes one dialect more aesthetically pleasing than another one?

From the readings that we have been doing lately, I formed this idea that this issue was more of a social/class attempt to separate “masters” from “servants” initally. Especially, in Britain it is considered fashionably fine to speak certain ways and to have certain dialects. For instance, in “Pygmalion” Eliza and Higgins illustrate this idea of having “advanced” and rational dialect puts you even in different social group. I suppose what really makes it “more aesthetically pleasing than another one” is that that person who speaks in “high-quality” dialect gets socially accepted by others who expect one another to have certain dialects.

Posted by lcisbold at 10:00 AM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2005

Chapter 5-- "Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts" Response

Comments

1. Stubbs said “It is almost impossible, for example, to hear someone speak without immediately drawing conclusions, possible very accurate, about his social class background, level of education, and what part of the country he comes from,” (66). I would like to take this a step further and say that we don’t even make assumptions. It is simply ingrained in our head that someone who talks a certain way is a certain sort of person. We do not make a decision to assume that a person is a certain way; it is simply imbedded in their dialect or accent. We simultaneously categorize them as we hear their speech.

2. I was really intrigued by the conversation that Stubbs had with the two fourteen-year-old girls. What interested me most was that they could not really pinpoint what was wrong with the speech they heard. Their reaction was very similar to one we, as a class, usually have. When we are asked what is wrong or different with a certain kind of speech, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly.

3. Stubbs questions about the relation between language and education are something that I had never thought about before. However, now that it has been brought to my attention I think that many people would associate a certain dialect with a lack of learning potential. I have talked about my father before and the fact that he does not pay attention to the pronunciation of certain words. Yet, he can juggle numbers better than anyone I know. Thus, from this and other evidence I have to agree with Stubbs’ assertions that language does not correspond to learning ability.

4. I was really interested by Stubbs acknowledgement of the difference between “using” and “understanding” a language. I never realized that when although a young child may “understand” a language; they may not be able to “use” it.

5. Stubbs also speaks about the use of different types of language in different settings. I was really interested by this because it seems to be one of the hottest topics in linguistics. It is amazing that so many people, linguists and non-linguists alike, recognize the importance of different conversational styles in different settings.

Questions

1. Stubbs touched upon the difference between accent and dialect, but I was not really satisfied with his conclusions. What exactly is the difference between dialect and accent?

2. Stubbs uses the phrase “…superficial features of language…” (67). What does he mean by this?

3. “We ought to be aware of the power of such social stereotyping?” (67). It is my belief that most people are aware of the power of stereotyping, but choose not to accept them. Do others share this belief?

4. Why is it that high class people speak the same, no matter the region of the country, while lower class people speak differently from region to region.

5. Why is it that, society, in general, is unaccepting of different types of speech?

Posted by lciscotis at 11:30 PM | Comments (0)

In Response to Zaya's Question

Q5: In the end, what is Lisa Delpit’s feeling towards Standard English? Is she encouraging the rest of the community to be more respectful to Ebonics so African American children will “adopt our language from as one to be added to their own”?

It seems as though Delpit is negative towards Standard English. She believes that most people think that Standard English is the highest form of language that one can speak. Sometimes, we may become too wrapped up in the idea that English is superior so we tend to disregard other languages and refer to them as "lazy". I do believe that she is encouraging the rest of the community to be more respectful of Ebonics, but not just so that African-American children will adopt our language from as one to be added to their own". I think that Delpit encourages African-American to learn English, but also to retain their roots, specifically, their mother tongue languages. She places high value on these languages because they are unique and hold importance for each person.

-Christina

Posted by lcisgancarz at 10:48 PM | Comments (1)

"No Kinda Sense" Chapter 3

Comments:

C1) Lisa Delpit writes “the second, if it was that easy for my child to “pick up” at school a new language clearly not her home language, then what was preventing the millions of African American children whose home language was different from the school’s form acquiring the dialect of Standard English?” This aspect of language is something to ponder. How can a child pick up a language so fast in one area, but many children can not learn proper English in the same amount of time? Delpit sees the change in her child because of her want and need to fit into a society. She feels comfortable with her friends and therefore is more likely to use their language.

C2) It is also interesting how Deplit comments on the Oakland Controversy. She writes, “behind the humor and the outrage was that some group of black folks had dared to air our dirty little secret—that a lot of us didn’t know how to “talk right,” and some didn’t much care what other folk thought about it” (37). In many ways, they still have pride in their language and usually use it frequently. Ebonics is still part of their culture and heritage. It must have been difficult seeing disturbing news about a language that is particular to your background. The truth of the matter is that the language is still common, even though it was being highly criticized (and still is highly criticized).

C3) “It doesn’t matter what other people think about you, you have to be who you are. It’s their problem if they can’t appreciate how wonderful you are” (38). This quote just seemed to jump out at me. The girl, Maya, was reiterating the same words her mother had told her, and yet her mother was telling her to stray away from this concept. I wonder, many times parents have to instill certain values into their children, but the world does not appreciate these values, and some of these values are unattainable for such a fickle world. Sometimes, I myself feel as though I have to step back for a second and analyze the situations that I am in. I try to make decisions based not on popular belief, but from my own belief.

C4) Aileen Moffitt, one of the white teachers at Oakland said that he actually obtained a rich appreciation for the culture and background of African-Americans who spoke Ebonics. He began to realize that the features of grammar, syntax, phonology, phonetics, morphology, and semantic were particularly intriguing. His response to the Oakland Controversy was a positive one. He was able to learn about another culture when all the news was portraying was negativity.

C5) “There is a reason our language is called our mother tongue. To speak out against the language that children bring to school means that we are speaking out against their mothers, that their mothers are not good enough to be a part of the school world. And in the African American community, talking about someone’s mother is the worst for of insult!” (47). I completely respect this quote. It embodies everything about language in general. We have learned a language since birth that is unique to our family, our background, our life. To ridicule a person because of his or her speech is one of the greatest insults possible. Again, just because a language is different, does not mean that it is less valued or less important for someone else.

Questions:

Q1) How did Delpit change her mind so quickly about language differences and accepting them? She indicates at the beginning of the chapter that she came from disciplining her child not to speak in Ebonics to speaking to others about embracing their language differences.

Q2) Why were linguists never involved in the Oakland Controversy even though they seem like they could make the biggest contributions?

Q3) I just want to clarify here. Delpit is suggesting that one can learn a language or a dialect easier if he or she is not forced into learning it?

Q4) When Delpit explains about students feeling alienated from school because of their background, is she just talking about her own heritage or in general? Is there a certain race that she is pointing to, a race that feels especially secluded?

Q5) Why did Delpit feel so awful about her daughter speaking Ebonics? Was it just because she thought that her daughter would be looked down upon?

-Christina

Posted by lcisgancarz at 10:42 PM | Comments (0)

"Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts" Chapter 5

Comments:

C1) This quote from a teacher talking to her class, in particular, struck me. “You can see on the bottom of your sheet, ‘We ain’t got no money.’ That is typically a London accent—the tendency to drop the aitch off the front of words, d’you see? It’s a lazy way of speaking”. I was taken back because I often call English that is not spoken properly, lazy, when in actuality, proper English should not have any priority over any other language. Every language and dialect should be treated with respect and should not be put down. Unfortunately though, in our society today, we do judge others by the way that they speak, but linguists have this ability to see the beauty in each language, dialect, and accent.

C2) I found it interesting that in a Canadian study, teachers actually judged how a student performed academically through their language. Teachers found that the way a child spoke directly influenced how they wrote and how they were able to produce art (e.g. painting, drawing). Students that spoke proper English were able to perform better in the classroom in general. This just shows that language does play an incredibly important role in the development of other skills.

C3) It has been noticed that the language of the poor is not underdeveloped and uncomplicated. “Fieldwork in urban and rural areas of Britain and the U.S.A. has demonstrated in detail that such dialects are inherently systematic and rule-governed, deeply organized systems of great complexity” (71). I have always associated poor people with poor simple language, and this information was new to me. Although these languages may not be English, they have significance with certain structures and rules as well. In connection with this comment, I thought that this statement was powerful and very true: saying that someone’s “English is “wrong” is to not make a linguistic, but a social linguistic judgment” (77).

C4) “Thus a child’s language may be a disadvantage in his educational progress: not because his language is itself “deficient,” but because it is different” (79). – In America, we have trouble accepting other’s languages. When someone cannot speak English, we automatically think that they are dumb, stupid, or uneducated. This particular quote, aforementioned, is completely true. Even though another person is not fluent in your language, does not mean that their language is any less important or should be labeled “deficient”.

C5) “I used to think I was poor. Then they told me I wasn’t poor, I was needy. Then they told me it was self-defeating to think of myself as needy, I was deprived. Then they told me derived was a bad image. I was underprivileged. Then they told me underprivileged was overused. I was disadvantaged. I still haven’t got a dime, but I have a great vocabulary” (79). This quote from a cartoon caught me off guard. It was so powerful. This quote shows how the meanings of words evolve over time, yet conditions do not change.

Questions:

Q1) I am confused about the conversation with the two girls and “sort of”. I do not understand what Michael Stubbs is trying to get at here. What did this conversation show?

Q2) What did the teachers do to make the children that they had identified as “less able”, “more able” in their classrooms?

Q3) Why do linguists think that there is no ambiguity in meaning in the two phrases “we was” and “we ain’t”? Sometimes, I become confused about their meanings, especially “ain’t”.

Q4) What exactly is the difference between nonstandard and informal speech?

Q5) How is it that the African-Americans could understand the meaning of a certain sentence but not repeat the sentence?

-Christina

Posted by lcisgancarz at 10:04 PM | Comments (0)

Baldwin's article

Baldwin writes in his article, "The brutal truth is that the bulk of the white people in America never had any interest in educating black people, except as this could serve white purposes". Although I am white, I completely agree with this statement. I am sure that teachers don't consciously think about it, but they stereotype students and make assumptions. This has happened to me, after all I am the minority, just like most black students are.

In society, there is an increasing number of black students going to college, but I do not think they are given the same opportunity to succeed. I know that African-Americans have just as much potential, intellegence and drive to do well, but society often plays a role in whether they succeed or not. America has been fighting prejudice and racism for a long time, and I am sad to say that it is far from being resolved. The problems still exist in society and cannot be ignored. Ideally, the world will never be at peace, but the color of one's skin seems a petty issue when there's people starving and dying each day.

Baldwin's final paragraph is a powerful testament to society today. He does bring a lot of good points up. It is a fact that there are more white people than black people in prison, but the media seems to only focus on those black people in jail. Even when white people have done worse crimes, they still get lesser sentences than those that are black. These injustices in the courtroom reflect society, there is definitely a correlation between the two.

And Baldwin is true, American standards can't be trusted. Our legal system can't keep the innocent out of jail, so how are we supposed to trust it? Unfortunately, most people won't stand up and do anything about it until it may be too late.

QUESTIONS

1. Why haven't teachers in areas heavily populated by black students been taught Ebonics?
2. Why do countries feel the need to eliminate dialects and other 'inferior' languages?
3. Why are people still unsure whether to classify Ebonics as a dialect of English or a completely separate language?
4. Baldwin states that black people have had a profound impact on how white Americans sound. Is this also true with other countries?
5. Why does Baldwin believe that the era of black slavery in America would have been shorter if black people had been able to speak to each other?

Posted by lcissearls at 09:14 PM | Comments (0)

Response to James Baldwin's article

There were a few points that James Baldwin made in the NYT article that I found interesting. Some of them I agree with and some of them I do not agree with. Baldwin writes in his article, "The brutal truth is that the bulk of the white people in America never had any interest in educating black people, except as this could serve white purposes". I don't know when this article was written becaue times have certainly changed over the last one hundred years and maybe I am a bit prejudiced since I myself am white, but I do not agree with this statement. I think Baldwin is taking a totally prejudices standpoint on this issue and I believe that especailly in recent years, Americans, black and white alike, have been just as interested in educating black people as they have been in educating white people.

It seems to be the standard in this country that everyone should be educated, no matter where they come from and what their background, race, religion, or financial situation is. I know this has changed a lot since the civil rights movement, but at least while I have been alive, this had always seemed to be the policy. I know I don't know everything there is to know on thip topic, but I think that Baldwin is taking a very strong standpoint on it and he gives absolutely no credit to the other side and I just do not agree with how he states his thoughts on this.

Another point that Baldwin brought up in this article was that black culture has had a very significant on the vocablulary and language that we use in this country. White people as well as black people talk about jazz and about the Beat Generation. I agree with what Baldwin is saying when he is explaining that without black culture, Americans would speak totally differently and who knows what that would sound like. However, I think he also presents this argument in a very harsh tone and I don't know if this was his intent, but it seems to me like he is poking fun at white Americans for not knowing where the word "Jazz" and some other phrases we use really came from.

Baldwin writes that "a people in the center of the Western world, and in the midst of so hostile a population, has not endured and transcended by means of what is patronizingly called a 'dialect'". He goes on to say that this is a lie and that black people are in trouble because supposedly white people do not realize that their "dialect" is actually a langugae. I understand why Baldwin is upset about this and why he is so adament about "Black English" being called a language, but I don't think that all Americans catoragize it as a dialect. In fact, I am sure most people don't even think about it, black and white people alike. Who is to say what is and what isn't a langauge or a dialect anyway? Is a Southern dialect a seperate language?

Baldwin has some very solid points, but I think they come from a bias that is too strong. He never looks at the other side of the argument and is harsh and cruel with his words. Maybe I would not think this if I came from the black culture, but I think that even if I did, I would still find this article to be a little harsh.

5 Questions

-What happened to cause Baldwin to take such a strong stance on this issue?

-If the slaves that were forced over from Africa were able to speak the same language, would slavery really not have lasted as long?

-When was this article written and published?

-Why does Baldwin think our country has "managed to learn so little"?

-Does Balwdin think that other dialects of English should be considered languages, or just "Black English"?

Posted by lcismardin at 07:03 PM | Comments (1)

Chapter 3: No Kinda Sense by Lisa Delpit

C1: It is sad that Maya, the fifth grader thought she should get plastic surgery to become pretty and ultimately to fit in the circle of her White school girls. This also shows how early girls start to become target of objectifying themselves.

C2: When African American popular singers, rappers, and actors clearly use Ebonics in their works, they are making it famous and are attaching certain pleasant meanings to Ebonics. They are creating new values for Ebonics.

C3: “The real issue was our concern about what others would think” There is notion of being worried because of their language or their own dialect. It is as if they are living in a foreign country but they are not. It sounds as if they are aliens in their own country.

C4: The man wrote on website “…they are just too stupid to learn to speak English like the rest of us.” Even though the comment was very racist, I think his comment represents what others think in general. We would agree that it is not because they are stupid to learn to speak Standard English. Their own version of English, Ebonics is what they truly can express themselves. Obviously anybody who wishes to speak Standard English can learn it but I think it is matter of whether they WANT to use it or not…

C5: People can be socially connected through the similarities of their language, dialect and conversational styles. In Maya’s case she did not necessarily spoke the Ebonics but her willingness brought her in the group.

Q1: What is the significance of those ads they put in the magazines such as “Hooked on Ebonics worked for me! Ah plays basketball and ah makes millions of dollars. If you gets Hooked on Ebonics, you can be a millionaire, too, jes’ like me!” Are they encouraging the use of Ebonics?

Q2: “The real issue was our concern about what others would think” There is notion of being worried because of their language or their own dialect. It is as if they are living in a foreign country but they are not. It sounds as if they are aliens in their own country.

Q3: What is meant by “…there are as yet few pockets which can ‘listen beyond’ language form” (38)

Q4: Is Stubbs saying that because the teachers are not encouraging their African American students, they are not recognizing their potential brilliance? (p. 46)

Q5: In the end, what is Lisa Delpit’s feeling towards Standard English? Is she encouraging the rest of the community to be more respectful to Ebonics so African American children will “adopt our language from as one to be added to their own”?

Posted by lcisbold at 06:34 PM | Comments (0)

Response to James Baldwin's article

Questions:

-Why does Baldwin title his article “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?”

-Why does he say, “The bulk of the white people in America never had any interest in educating black people?”

-Why does Baldwin choose to end his article the way he does?

-How do languages develop?

Response:

James Baldwin in his article entitled “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?” brings up a few points that I found to be quite powerful and a bit controversial. One such point is shown in the quotation: “The brutal truth is that the bulk of the white people in America never had any interest in educating black people, except as this could serve white purposes.” I found this to be quite controversial. I’m not sure when this article was written, but I do not agree with this statement if this is a recent article. If this article was written over twenty years ago, then I would agree, as racism was much more prevalent than it is today, even though it is still a problem.

I think that in present times, white people are interested in educating black people; moreover, people are interested in educating other people regardless of race. Now, I don’t mean to say that there aren’t cases proving this otherwise, but from my experiences, I think that people just want to educate others. True, some people are better off than others when it comes to education, but I think in general, people don’t want to deprive others of education.

Another point that Baldwin proposes concludes his article: “And, after all, finally, in a country with standards so untrustworthy, a country that makes heroes of so many criminal mediocrities, a country unable to face why so many of the non-white are in prison, or on the needle, or standing, futureless, in the streets – it may very well be that both the child, and his elder, have concluded that they have nothing whatever to learn from the people of a country that has managed so little.” In my opinion, Baldwin is saying that America in general has so much to learn about its people and society. Why are there more non-whites in prison than whites? Clearly, it can’t just be that more non-whites commit more crimes; there has to be more to it than that.

The last point that I found very interesting in this article is, “To open your mouth in England is…to ‘put your business in the street’: You have confessed your parents, your youth, your school, your salary, your self-esteem, and, alas, your future.” This relates directly to our recent discussions in class on linguistic profiling. Whenever you speak, people will pass judgment on all these things, and possibly more, that Baldwin brings up; it’s part of human nature. People can listen to how you speak, like your accent, your speed, what you emphasize, and also what you say, your vocabulary, your thought processes. From paying attention to these things, it is very simple to profile people and make judgments, even though you could be dead wrong.

-Jessica F.

Posted by lcisfaria at 06:05 PM | Comments (0)

Chapter 5: Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts by Michael Stubbs

C1: Anyone who makes or draws conclusions has linguistic stereotypes when he/she speak to others. As they speak they wonder what kind of background they had come from and such. Language is one of many major stereotypes that people make.

C2: Stubbs comments that “British people are very sensitive to the social implications of dialect and accent” (67) The power of difference in dialects can affect people’s way of looking at others.

C3: In an experiment done in Northern Ireland, linguists found out that fifteen out of fifty teachers they interviewed agreed that students’ should improve their speech and become more “able” academically. Sometimes, I have hard time fully understanding my professors. Sometimes, it occurs to me that the professors use their own language in class. Some professors or teachers in high school seemed very distant from their students and was not communicating with them; because of the way the spoke and how the students responded to them. This is where misunderstandings between students and faculty come in. They are not able to understand each other fully because of their difference in conversational styles and expectations.

C4: I am thinking that it is wrong to establish that powerful distinction between “standard” and “non-standard” languages. The sole purpose of language is to communicate the speakers’ ideas. As long as the speaker is being understood by the other speaker, their language is rational.

C5: I change my mind. The initial purpose of language was to promote communication between human beings. However, over the centuries people developed different social classes and status. Language and dialect is truly part of one’s identity. Therefore, the language does not have single/sole purpose to serve humans as communicators.

Q1: What is meant by “It is difficult to overestimate the importance of people’s attitudes and beliefs about language”? (66)

Q2: While I know that it is not wide spread and common for teacher to evaluate their students by the way they look and sound, I noticed in high school that some students had done the best they could do in the class and was still getting lower grades because of some teachers didn’t like the way they spoke. Stubbs suggests that this should be prevented (teachers survey in Canada) from happening. However, is there moral solution for teacher or students to understand one another?

Q3: Do people draw conclusion about someone who they are speaking with just from hearing their dialect, without noticing what the speech context was?

Q4: What about “standard writing”? If one speaks “non-standard” English and can write extremely well, would that person still appear as reduced in his/her social standings?

Q5: Stubbs finishes off his essay “…then you will probably try to change people’s attitudes to language”. In this essay he analyzes the stereotypes that people make regarding differences in language and dialect. Is it possibly to change the attitudes toward language?

Posted by lcisbold at 05:14 PM | Comments (0)

Response to Katie's Question

In response to Katie's question, the way a person uses language has a lot to do with their personality. The way people write, speak and phrase things is a telling part of who they are. Personality doesn't necessarily have to do with what language the person speaks (or signs) rather, how they express themselves. For example, in the movies and articles we've seen in class, syntax, tone are prevalent and help us as viewers and readers to have a sense of who or what the character/author is. I think that language impacts our personalities more than we think.

Posted by lcissearls at 04:16 PM | Comments (0)

Response to Katie's Question

In response to Katie's question, the way a person uses language has a lot to do with their personality. The way people write, speak and phrase things is a telling part of who they are. Personality doesn't necessarily have to do with what language the person speaks (or signs) rather, how they express themselves. For example, in the movies and articles we've seen in class, syntax, tone are prevalent and help us as viewers and readers to have a sense of who or what the character/author is. I think that language impacts our personalities more than we think.

Posted by lcissearls at 04:16 PM | Comments (0)

james baldwin response

“A Frenchman living in Paris speaks a subtly and crucially different language from that of the man living in Marseilles; neither sounds very much like a man living in Quebec; and they would all have great difficulty in apprehending what the man from Guadeloupe, or Martinique, is saying, to say nothing of the man from Senegal – although the “common” language of all these areas is French.” I think that this point made by James Baldwin is very accurate and true. People can speak the same language, but it can be totally different in different areas of the world or even the same city. I found this to be true in my life in a few areas. The other day in class when we were searching for articles online for certain topics, I came across an online quiz about what kind of English I speak. It asked questions like “What do you call the thing you put groceries in and push around the store” and “does the second syllable in pajamas sound more like the sound in jam or the ‘a’ sound in father?” I answered to what I normally call things and how I normally pronounce things. Then Katie did it, and she had different answers than me. What I thought was weird is that we only live about 20 minutes away from each other. She called something ( I forget what is was) something that I would never call the same thing, and granted I would probably be able to figure out what she meant by how she would be using it in a sentence, it was still different. She is speaking the same language, and I could understand her, it was just the word choices and the way she worded things that were different and confusing. I have also seen examples of this during my studies of Spanish. There are many different dialects and styles of the Spanish language. When I was learning it in high school, we would occasionally watch Spanish movies. My teacher would always give us a list of vocabulary words that we would never have seen before because they were slang or words used only in the upper part of Spain and not spoken in the, I guess, to call it for lack of words “general Spanish language.” Also, in our text books there would always be culture pages about different Spanish speaking areas and words that they use that are not used by other Spanish speaking areas. I find it very hard to understand movies in Spanish when there is slang being used or different words that aren’t used normally, just as Baldwin points out that it is hard for one man to understand fully another man speaking the same language but from a different area. In general, a language has more than one dialect and more than one correct way of speaking. This is evident through the English language, French, Spanish, and I’m sure a lot of other languages. I think that this is a main point that Baldwin is making. However, I was confused about some of the other points that he was making. Some questions that I have are: Is he trying to say that we, as white people, do not understand the black language? I don’t fully understand the main topic, what is it? Why is he bringing up slavery? Is he saying that slavery was the birth of African American language?

Posted by lcisnelson at 03:42 PM | Comments (0)

Twilight Los Angeles

Just to let all of you know.. Some of us are going to watch Twilight Los Angeles in the South Hall basement at 7:15 pm if anyone wants to join us.

Posted by lcisgancarz at 03:07 PM | Comments (0)

Answer to Rachel's Question

To answer Rachel's question about what the world would be like if everyone spoke proper English all the time and if there was so variety between dialect, I think the world would be a very boring place in comparison to what it is today. There would be no slang which would eliminate many jokes, and there would be no variety between regions of the county in terms of dialect. I think one of the most fun and interesting parts of visiting another place in the United States is being able to hear and and experience dialects of English that are different from what I speak. Also, we use so many slang words today that a huge chunk of our language would be gone and we would bot be able to communicate so of the phrases that we can now. "Proper" English seems stuffy and boring, and I think it is much better to have a variety of dialects and accents and vocabulary.

Posted by lcismardin at 03:05 PM | Comments (0)

Chapter 5-Some Basic Sociolinguistics Concepts

Comments

-It is so interesting to see how dialects are so different from each other and that when they are different enough, they can actually affect a child's performance in school

-I don't understand what is so awful about saying "sort of", I say it all the time

-It is amazing that langauges could exist with only 200-300 words, I can't even imagine only having a few hundred words to choose from

-I didn't know that languages existed that did not have writing systems

-It is a good thing that linguists agree that no language is superior to or inferior to any other language, but it would be even better if everyone could agree on this.

Questions

-What exactly is "Standard English"? (there are too many definitions!)

-How much can a person's language impact their personality?

-If linguists have decided that no language is either superior or inferior to another language, than why do people have so many thoughts about some languages and dialects being better than others?

-What makes one dialect more aesthetically pleasing than another one?

-Why is there even a term "standard english"? How can there be standard english if no one ven really speaks it?

Posted by lcismardin at 02:30 PM | Comments (0)

chapter 5 questions and comments

Comments:

I agree with the statement "It is almost impossible, for example, to hear someone speak without immediately drawing conclusions, possibly very accurate, about his social class background, level of education and what part of the country he comes from." I find myself doing this often, and I actually did it the other day while at a store.

I can't imagine being evaluated academically based on my speech and my looks. It amazes me that in a Canadian study this has been shown to be true. I know people that sounds intelligent but in reality are just plain stupid and I think it is unfair to judge someone based on how they sound. I am not one with a good vocabulary (I am very bad at "big words") and so does that mean that because I don't use these big words and sound extremely intelligent, that I'm not?

I am one to say "sort of" while speaking to somebody. I was suprised that the girls, who were only 14, thought that the speakers were badly brought up, but yet use the words themselves.

I agree and am glad to hear that linguists believe that no language or dialect is superior or inferior and that they all are there to suit the needs of the community in which they are found.

I think that more and more these days what is considered "bad English" (slang, colloquialisms, etc.) is being found to be somewhat acceptable. In our class with Nanette, it is acceptable and we use slang and colloquialism all the time. I think that it brings thing more down to earth and makes it easier.

Questions:

Should there be only one, acceptable, English for all purposes? Is that fair?

What would the world be like if everyone spoke proper English all the time and there was no variety?

Why is it called "standard English" and not just english or something else? What makes it standard, especially since people are from different backgrounds and cultures and what not.

Who ever came up with what is "good English" and "bad English"?

how wouild this author feel about chapter 3 and the ebonics debate?

Posted by lcisnelson at 02:08 PM | Comments (0)

response to a question

freya questioned...

What does "pseudolinguistic" mean, more specifically the prefix "pseudo"?

This is a question that I actually had when I was reading the article. So I looked up the prefix "psuedo-" and found that it means false, fake, or counterfeit.

I also searched and searched for things on pseudolinguistics but I came up empty. I'm assuming that is means fake linguistics, linguistics that are not true.

Posted by lcisnelson at 02:03 PM | Comments (0)

Chapter 3-No Kinda Sense

Comments

-It is amazing to see the effects of how children react to situations involving their own race vs. situations involving different races (Maya flourished when she was in a school were almost all the children were African-American)

-Code-switching seems like a very useful thing to be able to do and it's interesting to see how quickly children are able to learn how to do it

-I never knew that Ebonics was rule-based like standard dialect

-I also don't agree with the statement "Say it right or don't say it at all", I have never heard any teachers say that and I would think it would be more beneficial to help the students learn how to speak and encourage them rather them punishing them and telling them what they are doing is wrong and that they should just not speak at all

-I think the whole hairdressing idea is really cool, but I don't know if it's a good idea to focus completely on that in a regular school, it seems better for a cosmotology school either during or after high school.

Questions

-Where did all these different "codes" come from?

-What does the author think about the whole "Ebonics Debate"?

-Where did the word "ebonics" come from?

-For what and how is ethnomathematics used?

-Do children at predominantly African-American schools learn more about African their history and where they come from?

Posted by lcismardin at 01:44 PM | Comments (0)

Chapter 3 comments and questions

Comments:

It was very sad to hear how Maya was treated while in the predominatly white schools and how she didn't have many friends.

When I first read that Maya's language basically "changed" so qucikly when she started school at the charter school, I was shocked.

I thought that the paragraph about how she can "code switch" was very interesting. I think that it is true that when you are speaking in an interview for a job, or for a school, your presentation and how you speak is very important. I think that sometimes I "code switch." When I call someone on the phone, whether it be a company for something or my friends and their paretns pick up, my voice changes and I speak more clearly and slowly.

I don't agree with the comment "Students rarely get to talk in calssrooms." I think that classrooms these days are atleast, if not more, 50% of the time filled up by the students speaking. All throughout highschool and even middle school for me, participation was a big part of school. I don't remember one class where the students didn't speak for atleast half of the class each day.

WIth the comment about "say it right or don't say it at all" I was shocked to hear that teachers would even consider saying this to a student. Isn't a teachers job to teach? If a student does something wrong, aren't they supposed to correct them so the student learns?

Questions:

How come nobody asked what African American linguists thought during the ebonics debate?

where did all the "codes" come from for code switching?

If we were to go to an african american school, where they predomitly speak ebonics, would we be able to understand and to excel?

Do some schools combine standard english with everyday spoken english, tie them together and show the differences between the two and when to use proper english and so forth?

do children at predominatly african american schools learn more about African American culture and history then in a predominatly white school?

Posted by lcisnelson at 01:43 PM | Comments (0)

Chapter 5: Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts

Comments:

-I agree with Michael Stubbs in that no matter how hard we try, we still judge people by the way they speak.

-It’s horrible to forbid people to speak their native language! Language is such a huge part of your culture and taking that away is absurd! I find different languages to be very interesting.

-I agree, “there are no single-style speakers.” I know I speak differently to my friends than I do with my family, etc.

-I never really thought about the concept “asymmetrical linguistic systems,” but I definitely agree. There are certainly many words that I know of, but do not use because I’m not quite sure exactly how to use them.

-I think that the teacher’s own language does affect each student because students are impressionable and for the most part, the teachers do most of the speaking and therefore the students hear their language most of the time.

Questions:

-Why in Britain does “the higher up the social class scale one goes, the less one encounters regional variation in speech” occur?

-Why is there not a standard English accent?

-Why are social judgments about language so taboo?

-How would Michael Stubbs feel about the “Ebonics debate?”

-Do teachers encourage or discourage children’s different dialects and/or languages?

-Jessica F.

Posted by lcisfaria at 11:38 AM | Comments (2)

Chapter 2: "Homeplace" by Scott R. Sanders

In his essay “Homeplace” Scott Russell Sanders writes, “Migrants often pack up their visions and values with the rest of their baggage and carry them along.” (McQuade 146) Sanders’ writing style intrigued my senses and mood as I kept on reading. However, this particular passage kept coming back to me and I went back to read it again. The words “migrants…pack up…visions and values…carry them along” If you are a migrant and when you leave your country for any reason you consider yourself as “exiting” your country and your culture. Once you part your country for some time it might be that your vision of what you see will never be the same again. In that country, your ancestors have been rooting the values of life and culture for decades. It is not amiss leaving one’s country and that is what people have been doing; that is what America is made of. However many of us recognize that as we travel and move around we still keep what is truly and deeply determine us; our own culture. Cultural and other differences make us see what is good and what is not good about us and them.

Sanders quotes from Salman Rushdie, “The effect of mass migrations has been the creation of radically new types of human being: people who root themselves in ideas rather than places, in memories…” (McQuade 146) In my opinion, Rushdie argues that migrants take leave of absences but in respect for their past lives and countries they often come back to their home country in their minds. We will always find “home” in our minds, a place of comfort and origin.

Posted by lcisbold at 11:23 AM | Comments (2897)

Chapter 3: No Kinda Sense

Comments

-It’s so sad that Maya was treated so poorly in the White, private school.

-I never realized that some African Americans would be against teaching Ebonics in schools, but I can now see their points.

-I find it remarkable that Maya is able to code switch at her age; she is so close to puberty, I wonder if she had switched schools a year or two later if that would make it more difficult as her critical period would have passed.

-I never heard any teachers say something like “Say it right or don’t say it at all.” As far as I remember, teachers would either correct your mistakes or bring your attention to your mistakes, but never scolded you; that’s horrible.

-I think the whole idea surrounding basing a curriculum around hairdressing is a bit too much. I think it’s a good idea once in a while, but unless it’s a cosmetology school, I don’t think it should be used that often. Maybe once a month or so, in each class, there could be a special day designated to learn about cosmetology or other areas of interest.

Questions:

-What is the “collective shame” that the African Americans possess?

-Why weren’t African American linguists consulted for the “Ebonics debate?”

-What is the “affective filter?”

-What is Lisa Delpit’s position on the “Ebonics debate?”

-Why is the name of the chapter “No Kinda Sense?”

-Jessica F.

Posted by lcisfaria at 10:57 AM | Comments (5246)