Lupi, or wolves, was the pseudonym given to students who would inform teachers against their peers when they spoke in the vernacular instead of Latin. (Hummon 23) Now the label for an offender guilty of a similar crime may be nark or snitch, but there, in the beginnings of university life in medieval Europe, also lies the birth of slang, more specifically the slang of colleges.
From this early beginning, students at institutions of higher learning have had their own set of terms and phrases outside the reach of administrators and professors. College slang has been an integral part of university life for centuries of generations of students. It is a system of language that reflects the needs of the students and the shape of their campus social structure. By looking at the system of college slang, sociologists can gain insight into the interactions among students.
This first half of this paper will examine this phenomenon through the lens of “College Slang Revisited: Language, Culture, and Undergraduate Life”, an article in the January 1994 issue of The Journal of Higher Education written by David Hummon. The second half is dedicated to the construction of a potential study that could test the reverse crrelation, that is, the effect the set of slang terms used on college campuses has on campus social structures and identity.
Hummon’s article focuses on the role slang identities, the informal labels students used to describe one another, plays in shaping the college language landscape. These titles allow students to communicate more effectively information regarding a person’s personality, social status on activities on campus. This can be seen as particularly useful in the rather fluid world of campus society.
He opens with a statement of the state of the field. “Kansas University Slang: A New Generation” was thought to be the landmark work in college slang. As it turned out, the study by Dundes and Schonhorn, published in 1963, ended up in being the end of more than a century of college slang research dating back to 1815. For this reason, Hummon approached the issue again in 1994.
The biggest problem with the previous study was a lack of a solid definition of ‘college slang’. Is there a specific set of terms used by college students substantially different from slang in the rest of society, or is any slang used in a collegiate setting fit this description? For the sake of his paper, Hummon used the following working definition: “In this context, college slang can be defined as oral, informal, highly expressive language that is created and used primarily by students as part of undergraduate life.” (Hummon 76) Within this definition, the study focused on the slang terms students used to refer to one another, the frequency of use of such slang identities relative to each other, and the common terms on throughout the region, and other college campuses.
Hummon primarily used data taken from students at Holy Cross College, a private, Jesuit school in Massachusets with 2,500 students. In this study, sociology students between 1985 and 1988 were given interview forms to list and define labels used by students for different kinds of people at Holy Cross. Student observers also recorded slang usage among their fellow students.
A similar survey was also given to a social psychology class at University of California at Davis, a state school of 16,000 students in 1988. At the time, only one-third of UC Davis students lived on campus, as opposed to the overwhelming majority that lived on campus at Holy Cross. At UC Davis, 51 students mentioned 239 different pseudonyms, and at Holy Cross, 137 researchers collected 465 slang titles.
Slang identities arise as students spend much of their free time conversing with one another informally. Often titles appear for people being talked about to denote their academic concerns, social competence, unfrindliness, clothig styles, drug use, sexual prowess, ethnic and racial epithets, and gender objectification. It is important to recognize that slang identities are usually used refer to the other, not to the self. Of the terms gathered and mentioned by Hummon, a strong majority of them are negative, certainly when referring across social lines. This implies that part of self-identification in college is demonstration what a person is not. (This idea follows from an extreme of positive self-image: if a person considers themselves on the whole positive, then others wholly unlike him must be on the whole negative.)
Another explanation is offered by Connie Eble in her book "Slang and Sociability: In-Group Language Among College Students". She suggests that such derogatory terms function more as terms of endearment.
"In college student usage, potentially offensivenouns of address such as these [asshole, bitch, butthead.... e.g. from previous line] are much more likely to be endearing than hostile in intent and are used by people on friendly terms with one another. For the most part, they are used only among peers and directed only to a member of the same sex." (103)
Unfortunately, Hummon's study only reproduces the words without their original context, so whether the words were said with malicious intent or in the spirit of friendship is unknown.
In order to see how much of this can really be considered college slang, instead of just terms taken from the national slang lexicon, Hummon compared the terms recorded with the entries in The New Dictionary of American Slang. Finding roughly one third of the terms from either campuses belonged to the category of general slang. Of the terms that were found at both campuses, 66.1% percent belonged to general slang, leaving a solid third of terms volunteered on surveys to the category college slang identities common to both campuses. This suggests there is a national collection of college slang, (possibly built through media) since these two campuses with almost no like characteristics had shared language.
Also the exclusiveness of the terms on each campus varied greatly. At UC Davis almost half (45.2%) of the epithets turned in were general slang, as compared with only 27% at Holly Cross. Possible reasons for this include testing error in the difference of sample size, or a difference in the size of campus, or number of commuters/ interaction with the community. Hummon considers looking at the microcosm of campus as a subculture:
“Holy Cross is certainly consistent with a subcultural interpretation of college slang, if one assumes that the small, private, socially homogeneous residential college provides a more coherent and exclusive social context for the elaboration and transmission of student culture.”
Another possibility, raised by Hummon, is that each of these terms belong to distinct idiocultures within the subculture, that is to say most identities are not used campus wide, but rather within smaller subgroups and cliques. This would account for the large difference in number of terms. The smaller sample size would yield fewer distinct groups represented.
Since these slang identities appear so frequently in speech, they must have unique useful meanings for those who use them. These terms must more effectively express the social structure of campus than the conventional language provided to them from the perspective of the student.
It is therefore easy to understand why 33% of identities used in Holy Cross connect back to campus life, like pseudonyms relating to where people live, where as only 18% of terms at UC Davis, a commuter school, relate to life on campus. The day-to-day experiences of a Holy Cross student are much more campus centered than the daily activities of a UC Davis student. In terms of identities, if a student from HC meets someone new on campus, that person probably lives in another dorm. It becomes useful to have a ready system of descriptors to apply to different people you meet.
Of the other of Hummon’s categories of terms, the most notable is the difference in emphasis put on identities describing personal attributes (terms describing personality, values, and physical demeanor), at UC Davis (40% of terms) as compared to Holy Cross (28%). There are several possible for this difference. The most obvious would be the larger size of the student body. This would produce a need for a more exact set of terms to differentiate a single individual from the group. Also, the lack of communal dorm life could create situations in which students are less familiar with people outside their group. The biggest potential reason, underlying all these differences, is the different groups of people who attend colleges versus universities, more specifically the two schools studied, Holy Cross, and UC Davis. These schools are dramatically different in location and composition of student body, ad several other factors; it would then be assumed that the kinds of students attracted to each would discuss different things, and therefore would develop different slang. Due to the number of differences between the two colleges, it is very hard to draw any solid conclusions as to which exact factors would cause this difference.
In his discussion of the data, Hummon suggests that this intricate system of slang identities is a result of the complex social system of colleges. He also depicts how the physical location and buildings of a college shapes the nature of the slang used there. College students are likely to draw slang from the region where the college is located, and if the campus itself is central in college life, like at Holy Cross, there will be more terms centered on that part of life.
It is notable that in his theory, Hummon places the social order and situation as the source for the creation of slang identities, but he fails to consider the cyclical nature of the causal relationship between language and the society it comes from. He cites two studies that “indicate that knowledge of slang terms increases between the first and fourth years, providing further evidence that undergraduates are socialized to a distinct language of college life.”(79) to indicate that there is a dialect which can be called college slang, without discussing the effects of such socialization.
Any set of terms used to identify people has implications on identity, both as established by the individual. As Craig Calhoun states in “Social Theory and the Politics of Identity”:
We know of no people without names, no languages or cultures in which some manner of distinctions between self and other, we and they are not made. Though the concern may be universal, however, the identities are not.
The collection of statements “I am a…” or “He is a…” is essentially an embodiment of a person’s identity in language. College provides new terms that are added to the set of descriptors people can use to characterize themselves; slang identities offer a new set of words to fill in the blanks above. When this occurs, at the same time when people are establishing their identity outside of home, it would seem that the language used would have observable effects that can be recorded. The hypothetical study, presented below, could be constructed to record these possible effects. As Hummon presented, the societal constructs and situation of college effect the slang identities used by students on that campus. This study would pose the converse question: Do the college slang identities used by students to describe one another affect the social structure and self-conceptions of college students?
To test this theory, subjects on two campuses will be given an interview form survey, to see if college slang identities influence how they characterize themselves and to see if these identities affect how they would group unknown college students through common description. This survey will have to be given on at least two different campuses to determine if the language has affected the common grouping. The subjects will be students on the campuses being studies.
The prerequisite for such a study is to perform a new survey of college slang identities, specifically on the campuses where the study will take place. Hummon’s list is almost 20 years out of date. In this time, what was college slang will have moved into more mainstream society, as the students of two decades ago will have taken those words as part of their lexicon with them from college. This can be done in a similar manner to how the technique used at Holy Cross: using interview forms ask students to list and define labels used by students at their college to classify one another. Also it would produce better results use of student observers to record slang identities as mentioned above in addition to the written surveys. Much of slang terminology is more naturally spoken than written; some of the more informal pieces of jargon may not occur to students in a written format. This yielded much stronger results above. This could take place over the course of a scholastic year. These lists would then be compiled, as above, and compared with a recent slang dictionary to determine which of the terms can be classified as college slang. McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions, published in 2005, would serve well for this purpose.
It is possible, although unlikely based on the longstanding history of student subculture that the set of expressions termed college slang has blended into more mainstream society. In this case the study need not go further, as there is not a unique set of terms college students could use to classify one another. If, as is likely, there is indeed a list of college slang identities in use by students on the campuses selected, the study can proceed with the primary interview form.
The form will have two parts, one focusing on self-description, and the other on general characterization of other students. The first part will simply ask subjects to describe themselves. The wording of prompt should be such that students are more likely to respond informally. (e.g. “Please describe yourself in your own terms.”) If after some test surveys, the responses are lacking in ‘identities’, the question can be modified to put more emphasis on nouns in responses. (“Complete the statement, ‘I am…’ as many times as necessary to describe yourself.”)
The next section of the interview form will have the subjects describe ten sample pictures of college students presented to them. This prompt should be more strictly worded to generate identity based responses similar to those from the list of college slang identities. (e.g. “What words would other students at this college use to describe the people depicted in each of these pictures?” As above this could be switched to a more noun-based prompt if needed.) The pictures will be selected to visually represent a wide range of possible college identities. They should depict students in different styles of dress, with objects generally associated with different activities, in different locations. Without exact imitation or awkward juxtaposition, there should be some overlap between the characterizations, for example, if one picture depicts a student in a fraternity sweater with carrying a stack of books in the library, another could pick an athlete in the library studying with his gym bag next to him. Choosing pictures in this manner will allow the subject to describe the picture based on several different attributes, while encouraging them to use the same word to describe more than one of the pictures.
The answers from the self-description section will be tallied and compared against the list of college slang terms to see what percentage of subjects used college slang identities to describe themselves and how much of their response consisted of colleges slang identities. This will demonstrate how much of an effect college slang identities effect how students view themselves. To compile data from the second part, the terms used in the description of each picture will be counted for frequency of repetition. By looking at the overall trend in labeling and common uses of college slang identities among different pictures, it is possible to see the relationship between the characterization of people in different areas of the campus social structure and college slang identities.
To examine if college slang has affected the social order, rather than the other way around, these results should be compared with the results from a similar school. If the same pictures were grouped by common description differently at the two campuses using the same words, this would imply that the social order or local usage has shaped the identity. If two distinct sets of college identities, each unique to its campus, has resulted in a different classification of people, then the language has affected the perception on the two campuses of the types of people in the pictures. The language has shaped the social structure.
There are some obstacles inherent in trying to draw conclusions from this knid of study, the most prevalent being the cyclical relationship of language and society. How can the person evaluating the results be positive that the difference in grouping by slang identity isn’t the result of the social order? The pictures were selected for flexibility of classification; each student depicted can be classified into a number of different identities. By looking at the relative prevalence of slang terms between the two schools, it will be clear if the language through which the subjects think of these has affected which of these is considered the pictured student’s primary grouping.
Another difficulty, more environmental in nature, will be the differences between the colleges compared in the study. Different colleges attracted different students and put emphasis on different areas. For example, if a school stresses excellence in athletics and has an excellent sports program, the college slang may be more focused around areas of fan life and sporting events, for reasons completely outside the scope of this experiment. For this reason, the compared colleges should be as similar as possible, and their differences should be taken into account when making final conclusions.
The implications of such a study could be fairly dramatic depnding on the strength of the results. Seventy percent of American high school graduates attend college within two years of completing high school. (Education Trust) This could mean a strong majority of the country has at one point in their life identified with this sub-category of labels. This study could provide quantitative differences to examine between school social structures and how students self identify on different campuses. Since similarly unique systems of terminology exist at other stages of development, like middle school and high school, it would make sense to do follow up studies on middle school slang and high school slang. Another interesting follow up study would be to examine the origins of the slang identities at each of these stages; who is influencing the identities of American young adults?
It is quite possible college slang is beyond such influence, a truly unique system of terms created collectively by the student body for the student body for the student body. Hummon demonstrates in his article that indeed college slang, and especially college slang identities are shaped by the student's relationship to their environment. He further showed, college slang can be as a unique window through which to see the social structures and daily lives of students. Possibly with futre study, the depth of the interelationship between the words students use to describe themselves and their affect on the surrounding society can be better understood.
Calhoun, Craig J.
"Social Theory and the Politics of Identity."
Social Theory and the Politics of Identitiy. Ed. Calhoun, Craig J.
New York: Blackwell Publishing, 1994.
Found on Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=zACdRwEJx8wC&printsec=frontcover&vq=Social+Theory+and+the+Politics+of+Identity
Eble, Connie
Slang and Sociability: In-Group Language Among College Students
Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1996.
Found on Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UOwcJcX-qroC&printsec=frontcover&dq=slang+and+sociability&lr=&sig=CaZGNX9o0qjrCEV8lG8VjkfILiw
Hummon, David M.
"College Slang Revisited: Language, Culture, and Undergraduate Life"
The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 65, No. 1. (Jan. - Feb., 1994), pp. 75-98.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-1546%28199401%2F02%2965%3A1%3C75%3ACSRLCA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W
The Education Trust. Fall 1999. “Ticket to Nowhere. The Gap Between Leaving High School and Entering
College and High Performance Jobs,” in Thinking K-16, Vol. 3, Issue 2, Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Language of Faith
In response to "Richard Russo's Catholic Language" (http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=A200C15D-3048-887F-8F76DADD9F3357E8)
In a recent interview on BustedHalo.com, an 'online magazine for spiritual seekers in their 20's and 30's', Richard Russo, a fiction "I was raised a Catholic but I am not a Catholic anymore but what has remained is the language of Catholicism...
Grace, original sin. Nothing make me more angry than to hear simple concepts that have been good and useful going back thousands of years, but now we can't talk about good and evil anymore, we've turned it into good choices and bad choices. Well screw that! We don't want to ground anything in morality anymore. We're going to secularize the entire language? We're going to neuter it?"
Russo's question is an important one. Why have terms associated with religion been deemed taboo for use in many parts of politics and media, or when they do occur, are so readily criticized?
It could come largely from the constant effort to separate church and state that has become a focus in America, and a near neurosis in parts of Europe. It could also be that using these sorts of terms of absolutes eliminate moral relativism and establishes one viewpoint as right.
Or maybe, it is that these words do not have a consistent collective meaning.
Religious doctrine and theology many times comes down to defining the terms. Different religion, different definitions. This has become particularly prevalent in the Conservative Movement in Judaism, which engages with traditional Jewish texts, bur primarily in English. There is a new trend to reclaim the terminology of Salvation used in many Christian sects. This is the translation of a fundamental point of Jewish theology, but Conservative Jews have shied from the idea since in English it appears to 'belong' to another religion. Each of these ideas of 'salvation', the same and singular word, differs dramatically.
Thus when using religiously charged language, a person runs the risk of having their message interepreted in very different ways by different audience members.
Are words without consistent agreed upon definitions still useful in clear communication? If not, where are they useful?
In a recent interview on BustedHalo.com, an 'online magazine for spiritual seekers in their 20's and 30's', Richard Russo, a fiction "I was raised a Catholic but I am not a Catholic anymore but what has remained is the language of Catholicism...
Grace, original sin. Nothing make me more angry than to hear simple concepts that have been good and useful going back thousands of years, but now we can't talk about good and evil anymore, we've turned it into good choices and bad choices. Well screw that! We don't want to ground anything in morality anymore. We're going to secularize the entire language? We're going to neuter it?"
Russo's question is an important one. Why have terms associated with religion been deemed taboo for use in many parts of politics and media, or when they do occur, are so readily criticized?
It could come largely from the constant effort to separate church and state that has become a focus in America, and a near neurosis in parts of Europe. It could also be that using these sorts of terms of absolutes eliminate moral relativism and establishes one viewpoint as right.
Or maybe, it is that these words do not have a consistent collective meaning.
Religious doctrine and theology many times comes down to defining the terms. Different religion, different definitions. This has become particularly prevalent in the Conservative Movement in Judaism, which engages with traditional Jewish texts, bur primarily in English. There is a new trend to reclaim the terminology of Salvation used in many Christian sects. This is the translation of a fundamental point of Jewish theology, but Conservative Jews have shied from the idea since in English it appears to 'belong' to another religion. Each of these ideas of 'salvation', the same and singular word, differs dramatically.
Thus when using religiously charged language, a person runs the risk of having their message interepreted in very different ways by different audience members.
Are words without consistent agreed upon definitions still useful in clear communication? If not, where are they useful?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Responses
In response to Travis's Nov. 12 post in response to my comment in response to his Nov. 7 post.
Travis:
Upon rereading your previous post (Nov. 7) I realized that what you were talking about is not necessarily a common first language on a global level, but rather a global second language. This feels much more acceptable to me.
My initial concern was regarding a common first language. In any given language, when a person is trying to translate to a different language, there is inevitably a word or phrase which doesn't quite translate. In switching to an international first language, each of these nuances would be lost. Each frame of mind, each instance of a thought process these words represent would be eliminated by the steamroller of a common first language. Similarly, systems of logic based on syntax outside of those of the new global language would not translate into the new first language. These lost paths to ideas could be the key to the next scientific breakthrough or a better theory connecting the different kinds of human experience.
In the new context of a global second language, I find the idea much less intimidating. The main risk, in my mind, associated with such an endeavor is that the common second language may become the only language, or so dominant as to essentially be the only language, and all of the above concerns about a common first language recur. (There are also the concerns for the literary world as seen in the link below.)
As for the choice of English, I still feel, in the long run, it is a fairly arbitrary choice. Any such global language will inevitably change. Change seems to be the only constant in history. I people say this is the first time in history these conditions exist, but that's what the previous empire said. Rome can never predict it's own fall. English might be the best choice now, but I doubt it will eternally be so.
You mention in the Nov. 12 post, possibly changing English. Noah Webster suggested something similar to distinguish American English from it's colonial parent. His changes can be seen in colour and color, and other differentiations in spelling, but this was only the start of his ideas for spelling reformation. He wanted to go so far as to do away with silent e and other superfluous letters in words, so that eventually English would be purely alphabetic in its phonetics., each letter making one unique sound. A would-be useful trait for a global second language.
For an interesting perspective on what could come of English as an international second language, check out the free online book "English Next" found here: http://goingglobal.corante.com/archives/2006/02/24/english_as_a_second_language_english_as_a_global_language.php
For a look at what may be lost on a literary level: http://www.cepr.org/press/DP2055PR.htm
Travis:
Upon rereading your previous post (Nov. 7) I realized that what you were talking about is not necessarily a common first language on a global level, but rather a global second language. This feels much more acceptable to me.
My initial concern was regarding a common first language. In any given language, when a person is trying to translate to a different language, there is inevitably a word or phrase which doesn't quite translate. In switching to an international first language, each of these nuances would be lost. Each frame of mind, each instance of a thought process these words represent would be eliminated by the steamroller of a common first language. Similarly, systems of logic based on syntax outside of those of the new global language would not translate into the new first language. These lost paths to ideas could be the key to the next scientific breakthrough or a better theory connecting the different kinds of human experience.
In the new context of a global second language, I find the idea much less intimidating. The main risk, in my mind, associated with such an endeavor is that the common second language may become the only language, or so dominant as to essentially be the only language, and all of the above concerns about a common first language recur. (There are also the concerns for the literary world as seen in the link below.)
As for the choice of English, I still feel, in the long run, it is a fairly arbitrary choice. Any such global language will inevitably change. Change seems to be the only constant in history. I people say this is the first time in history these conditions exist, but that's what the previous empire said. Rome can never predict it's own fall. English might be the best choice now, but I doubt it will eternally be so.
You mention in the Nov. 12 post, possibly changing English. Noah Webster suggested something similar to distinguish American English from it's colonial parent. His changes can be seen in colour and color, and other differentiations in spelling, but this was only the start of his ideas for spelling reformation. He wanted to go so far as to do away with silent e and other superfluous letters in words, so that eventually English would be purely alphabetic in its phonetics., each letter making one unique sound. A would-be useful trait for a global second language.
For an interesting perspective on what could come of English as an international second language, check out the free online book "English Next" found here: http://goingglobal.corante.com/archives/2006/02/24/english_as_a_second_language_english_as_a_global_language.php
For a look at what may be lost on a literary level: http://www.cepr.org/press/DP2055PR.htm
Monday, November 26, 2007
Subtitles
In response to E Pluribus Unum, Comprende? (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-21160351.htm)
Americans can speak Spanish, and still be American. Or should we edit the words on the Statue of Liberty to read, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your english-speaking masses yearning to breathe free..."
Multilingualism is not an affront to the identity of the United States. The author, in alluding to the previous waves of immigration "wanting to be American", overlooks the time it takes for new citizens to learn a language. Often it was only the second generation who learned English out of necessity and a desire to pursue opportunities for advancement. To get certain jobs, knowledge of English was necessary. This is still the case today.
So why is a two women speaking Spanish while sorting clothing cause enough to be fired. It seems to me, that this is an overreaction to the point of paranoia. For an employer to require English as a prerequisite makes sense where customer interaction is involved. Some fields, such as health care professions, have even started looking for people who can speak spanish. Communicating with the customer is key for business, so it makes sense that job options would be limited by language skills. What is slightly more confusing, is why do they matter for positions in which there is no customer interaction? This is not as simple as limiting people's freedom of dress with a dress code as the columnist implies. There are outside laws and societal as to appropriate dress for work and public, and also limits to what people can control through a dress code. (e.g. religious garb.) There is no such correlation for mandatory language. In a situation where miscommunication is not an issue, and it does not disrupt or affect the work of other employees, I feel that discriminating for work based on language is unjust.
Similarly, I don't believe clinging to laws or ideas of the past and what being American has meant is the best justification. In the 19th century, that meant no Irish. Jim Crow laws and constitutional justification of slavery, that a slave was only three-fifths of an American citizen, show that laws must change with perspective and time.
Assimilation, however, seems like an inevitability. The new culture(s) affect America and over time, through pushing and pulling, the country again has "assimilated" to a new culture. As long as the majority of media is in English and education remains predominantly in English, then learning English is a near inevitability for the next generations. I mean it's not like there are spanish only television stations, separate music awards for latin music, or spanish dubbing on national television networks.... oh, wait.
Is it possible "Transmido en SAP" (forgive my spelling, Spanish, and memory), the words at the bottom of the screen before major television programs indicating the availability of Spanish dubbing, could lead to a permanently bilingual country? Possibly. It enables spanish speaking immigrant communities to truly isolate themselves in a language the way their 20th century European counterparts could not. If a person wanted to enjoy the scope of American media entertainment, English was a prerequisite in a way it is not any more. A solution to this problem (if indeed someone feels it is a 'problem' that needs a 'solution') comes in a very simple form. Subtitles. On TV, movies, and everywhere. This subtle script exposes Spanish-speakers that would otherwise be isolated to English, while simultaneously allowing them access to a wider range of media. And the next generation, would be exposed to English before their reading picked up, and be put in situations where they want to learn the language and what is being said. (It could even be sold as an attempt to up Spanish literacy.)
This is the secret behind the Israeli population's understanding of Hebrew.
This is a real exchange I heard over dinner at my cousin's house:
--I didn't know you speak English. Are your parents American or do you just watch a lot of TV?"
--I watch a lot of TV.
Over time watching TV, hearing the words, and reading the screen, people pick up the language.
But if this doesn't happen, and for the first time, the third generation doesn't embrace English over their grandparent's tongue for daily use. I'd encourage the columnist not to think of this specifically as the balkans, but as any European state where dialects and languages vary greatly within a single countries borders. Change is not the end of the world; just the end of the world that was.
Americans can speak Spanish, and still be American. Or should we edit the words on the Statue of Liberty to read, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your english-speaking masses yearning to breathe free..."
Multilingualism is not an affront to the identity of the United States. The author, in alluding to the previous waves of immigration "wanting to be American", overlooks the time it takes for new citizens to learn a language. Often it was only the second generation who learned English out of necessity and a desire to pursue opportunities for advancement. To get certain jobs, knowledge of English was necessary. This is still the case today.
So why is a two women speaking Spanish while sorting clothing cause enough to be fired. It seems to me, that this is an overreaction to the point of paranoia. For an employer to require English as a prerequisite makes sense where customer interaction is involved. Some fields, such as health care professions, have even started looking for people who can speak spanish. Communicating with the customer is key for business, so it makes sense that job options would be limited by language skills. What is slightly more confusing, is why do they matter for positions in which there is no customer interaction? This is not as simple as limiting people's freedom of dress with a dress code as the columnist implies. There are outside laws and societal as to appropriate dress for work and public, and also limits to what people can control through a dress code. (e.g. religious garb.) There is no such correlation for mandatory language. In a situation where miscommunication is not an issue, and it does not disrupt or affect the work of other employees, I feel that discriminating for work based on language is unjust.
Similarly, I don't believe clinging to laws or ideas of the past and what being American has meant is the best justification. In the 19th century, that meant no Irish. Jim Crow laws and constitutional justification of slavery, that a slave was only three-fifths of an American citizen, show that laws must change with perspective and time.
Assimilation, however, seems like an inevitability. The new culture(s) affect America and over time, through pushing and pulling, the country again has "assimilated" to a new culture. As long as the majority of media is in English and education remains predominantly in English, then learning English is a near inevitability for the next generations. I mean it's not like there are spanish only television stations, separate music awards for latin music, or spanish dubbing on national television networks.... oh, wait.
Is it possible "Transmido en SAP" (forgive my spelling, Spanish, and memory), the words at the bottom of the screen before major television programs indicating the availability of Spanish dubbing, could lead to a permanently bilingual country? Possibly. It enables spanish speaking immigrant communities to truly isolate themselves in a language the way their 20th century European counterparts could not. If a person wanted to enjoy the scope of American media entertainment, English was a prerequisite in a way it is not any more. A solution to this problem (if indeed someone feels it is a 'problem' that needs a 'solution') comes in a very simple form. Subtitles. On TV, movies, and everywhere. This subtle script exposes Spanish-speakers that would otherwise be isolated to English, while simultaneously allowing them access to a wider range of media. And the next generation, would be exposed to English before their reading picked up, and be put in situations where they want to learn the language and what is being said. (It could even be sold as an attempt to up Spanish literacy.)
This is the secret behind the Israeli population's understanding of Hebrew.
This is a real exchange I heard over dinner at my cousin's house:
--I didn't know you speak English. Are your parents American or do you just watch a lot of TV?"
--I watch a lot of TV.
Over time watching TV, hearing the words, and reading the screen, people pick up the language.
But if this doesn't happen, and for the first time, the third generation doesn't embrace English over their grandparent's tongue for daily use. I'd encourage the columnist not to think of this specifically as the balkans, but as any European state where dialects and languages vary greatly within a single countries borders. Change is not the end of the world; just the end of the world that was.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
In Lieu of Other Things
I think this cartoon, from xkcd.com (a really funny site if you want to check it out), adds a certain statement about how quickly linguistic imperialism, change or elimination of languages as the result of conquering, is overlooked in debates on language. In fact even the Queen's English is a decendent of a combination of early French and German languages superimposed on one another through conquest.
Monday, November 12, 2007
TV Eats Your Baby's Brain
In response to: Baby DVDs may slow early language acquisition (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?date=11/13/2007%209:00:12%20AM) and 'Baby genius' DVDs delay language skills (http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/baby-genius-dvds-delay-language-skills/2007/10/17/1192300839626.html)
As it turns out, all those hours of staring at a television screen of swirling shapes and classical music, although distracting for baby and giving a break to mommy, are not actually increasing the child's inteligence. At least not on a language level. Infact, a study from the University of Washington says just the opposite, that babies that for each extra hour per day of brain-boosting programming under names like "Baby Einstein" and "Brainy Baby" reduced the word recognition test scores by 17 points in infants between 8 and 16 months. This effect ballances out by age 24 months, when 'Baby Einstein' catches up with 'Sponge Bob', 'Sesame Street', and 'Oprah', none of which showed negative impact on language development.
The only kids who demonstrated a noted positive difference on the tests were those who were read to by parents once a day.
This says a lot about language development in toddlers. That, surprisingly enough, children need to be exposed to language to learn it. A child obviously can't pick up a language without hearing it. But this doesn't explain how those children showing a gap in language abilities at 16 months are caught up by 24 months. (Any ideas?)
Due to the social nature language, those children who are read to out perform thos who have learned from TV. Those children in contact with parents as they read them a book receive other cues to use to help understand the meaning of new words, and possible side conversation of the book providing another context for the text, not to mention probably being in a happier emotional state better for learning.
The idea of baby genius tapes is the result of a game of scientifically-innacurate telephone coming from "the Mozart Effect". In 1993 "Nature" published a study conducted at UC Irvine showing ADULTS did better on spatial reasoning tests after hearing Mozart. (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/elementary/default.aspx?article=classicalmusic) Through press buzz on the story, and public connecting 2 and 2, from this it is obvious that Mozart makes babies smarter.
Since Mozart must make babies smarter, it only makes sense that a DVD around the composer's work would be twice as effective by adding a visual component. Ta-dah! Baby DVD's are a $100 million industry.
In short, read to your kids, don't let a TV do it for you.
As it turns out, all those hours of staring at a television screen of swirling shapes and classical music, although distracting for baby and giving a break to mommy, are not actually increasing the child's inteligence. At least not on a language level. Infact, a study from the University of Washington says just the opposite, that babies that for each extra hour per day of brain-boosting programming under names like "Baby Einstein" and "Brainy Baby" reduced the word recognition test scores by 17 points in infants between 8 and 16 months. This effect ballances out by age 24 months, when 'Baby Einstein' catches up with 'Sponge Bob', 'Sesame Street', and 'Oprah', none of which showed negative impact on language development.
The only kids who demonstrated a noted positive difference on the tests were those who were read to by parents once a day.
This says a lot about language development in toddlers. That, surprisingly enough, children need to be exposed to language to learn it. A child obviously can't pick up a language without hearing it. But this doesn't explain how those children showing a gap in language abilities at 16 months are caught up by 24 months. (Any ideas?)
Due to the social nature language, those children who are read to out perform thos who have learned from TV. Those children in contact with parents as they read them a book receive other cues to use to help understand the meaning of new words, and possible side conversation of the book providing another context for the text, not to mention probably being in a happier emotional state better for learning.
The idea of baby genius tapes is the result of a game of scientifically-innacurate telephone coming from "the Mozart Effect". In 1993 "Nature" published a study conducted at UC Irvine showing ADULTS did better on spatial reasoning tests after hearing Mozart. (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/elementary/default.aspx?article=classicalmusic) Through press buzz on the story, and public connecting 2 and 2, from this it is obvious that Mozart makes babies smarter.
Since Mozart must make babies smarter, it only makes sense that a DVD around the composer's work would be twice as effective by adding a visual component. Ta-dah! Baby DVD's are a $100 million industry.
In short, read to your kids, don't let a TV do it for you.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Language as Society: Change and Transition
In response to: The language of world communication (http://www.nationnews.com/editorial/306156905562860.php)
The term Bajan refers to both the people and the street language of Barbados. The word originated from a heavily accented pronunciation of "Barbadian", "Barbajan", which later became shortened. The term grew to become a label for at first the uneducated, but eventually all of the people of Barbados.
Although there official language of Barbados is English, Bajan, a dialect of English, prevails among Barbadians in daily life.
Felicia C, a poster on Yahoo Answers explains it thus:
"As a Bajan (Barbadian), I have to say that we will try to speak proper English
(ie what we call "the Queen's English") when speaking to tourists or formal
situations but we have little use for it otherwise, and most conversations
between Bajans take place in the dialect."
(http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006060114358)
The author of the article objects to this proliferation improper English. Part of the cause, in their mind, is a negative social stigma about those who speak properly. The article comes in support of the statements of Chief Education Officer Wendy Griffith-Watson, who is trying to undo this stereotype, and encourage the everyday use of formal English.
The author of the article goes on to connect this everyday use of an informal tongue with general decline of society and all the shady morals demonstrating "increasing disrespect for law and order". If the people speak slang in the street, the whole world will fall apart?!
In particular they cite the ZR (Route Taxi) Culture and kids opting for use of privately run Public Service Vehicles over government sponsored Buses. These alternate modes of transportation are bastions of a Bajan counter culture. Since the government has kept the prices on Transport Board Buses fixed for the past 15 years, PSV operators must keep their prices low to compete. The crews running such conveyances, necessary for commuters in Barbados, are kept in a lower earning bracket, meaning only the less educated take on these jobs. The term ZR culture stems from the perceived looseness and illicit actions of some crews or patrons of PSV's. (Check out "http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/public-service-vehicles-in-barbados-we-love-them-but/")
But is there necessarily a relationship between what may be seen as the crumbling of society and slang language? This author, like many others we have encountered in our news stories for BBC language advisers and government controlled standards to preserve language integrity, is of the conservative mindset that languages need to be preserved in its current, 'proper' form. This is dramatically apparent in their opening sentence, quoting Shakespeare. It is common in this mindset to relate changes in language to negative changes in society.
Here is an interesting fact: No one talks like Shakespeare anymore! Languages change. This is not to say that languages should have no standards whatsoever, but in the case of Bajan, which has taken root throughout Barbados, maybe it is the solution to, rather than the cause of, societal problems.
As with many dialects with origins among slave populations, there is a lingering external association between foolishness or stupidity and Bajan. This can be seen in the case of the Jamaican dialects in any number of ads for the latest spiced rum. By insisting on the use of proper English these stereotypes are reinforced.
Why not, rather, embrace and institutionalize Bajan? If its deficiencies preventing it from being a "formal language" are grammar and structure, create them. There is a risk that this would not be acceptable to speakers of Bajan, which is known for its constant fluidity and adaptation, but it could create a positive cultural self-identity, that the Bajan is truly valid in culture and language.
The term Bajan refers to both the people and the street language of Barbados. The word originated from a heavily accented pronunciation of "Barbadian", "Barbajan", which later became shortened. The term grew to become a label for at first the uneducated, but eventually all of the people of Barbados.
Although there official language of Barbados is English, Bajan, a dialect of English, prevails among Barbadians in daily life.
Felicia C, a poster on Yahoo Answers explains it thus:
"As a Bajan (Barbadian), I have to say that we will try to speak proper English
(ie what we call "the Queen's English") when speaking to tourists or formal
situations but we have little use for it otherwise, and most conversations
between Bajans take place in the dialect."
(http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006060114358)
The author of the article objects to this proliferation improper English. Part of the cause, in their mind, is a negative social stigma about those who speak properly. The article comes in support of the statements of Chief Education Officer Wendy Griffith-Watson, who is trying to undo this stereotype, and encourage the everyday use of formal English.
The author of the article goes on to connect this everyday use of an informal tongue with general decline of society and all the shady morals demonstrating "increasing disrespect for law and order". If the people speak slang in the street, the whole world will fall apart?!
In particular they cite the ZR (Route Taxi) Culture and kids opting for use of privately run Public Service Vehicles over government sponsored Buses. These alternate modes of transportation are bastions of a Bajan counter culture. Since the government has kept the prices on Transport Board Buses fixed for the past 15 years, PSV operators must keep their prices low to compete. The crews running such conveyances, necessary for commuters in Barbados, are kept in a lower earning bracket, meaning only the less educated take on these jobs. The term ZR culture stems from the perceived looseness and illicit actions of some crews or patrons of PSV's. (Check out "http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/public-service-vehicles-in-barbados-we-love-them-but/")
But is there necessarily a relationship between what may be seen as the crumbling of society and slang language? This author, like many others we have encountered in our news stories for BBC language advisers and government controlled standards to preserve language integrity, is of the conservative mindset that languages need to be preserved in its current, 'proper' form. This is dramatically apparent in their opening sentence, quoting Shakespeare. It is common in this mindset to relate changes in language to negative changes in society.
Here is an interesting fact: No one talks like Shakespeare anymore! Languages change. This is not to say that languages should have no standards whatsoever, but in the case of Bajan, which has taken root throughout Barbados, maybe it is the solution to, rather than the cause of, societal problems.
As with many dialects with origins among slave populations, there is a lingering external association between foolishness or stupidity and Bajan. This can be seen in the case of the Jamaican dialects in any number of ads for the latest spiced rum. By insisting on the use of proper English these stereotypes are reinforced.
Why not, rather, embrace and institutionalize Bajan? If its deficiencies preventing it from being a "formal language" are grammar and structure, create them. There is a risk that this would not be acceptable to speakers of Bajan, which is known for its constant fluidity and adaptation, but it could create a positive cultural self-identity, that the Bajan is truly valid in culture and language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)