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)