Thoughts on Bilingualism!

Since I've done so much research on bilingualism, I thought I'd share a few things that were on my mind. I know I've already said a lot on code-switching, but I really find it interesting when it happens. I can't say how many times per day I'm exposed to it...my roommate himself is Mexican-American, and he talks to someone in his family almost everyday. He'll begin by greeting his family member in Spanish, but within seconds, he'll switch over to English, especially when it comes to words about school, money, or things going on in the apartment. Prior to studying bilingualism more in-depth, I never really paid attention to how frequently it happened.

(will continue....)

Thoughts About Language

This semester, we've explored a whole array of things we can do with words--we've looked at how words can have an artistic, aesthetic aspect to them. We've seen this verbal art and verbal play. We've also see, thanks to Orwell, how language has become convoluted and can obfuscate one's meaning...we examined this in Persuasive and Political Speech. Moreover, language has taken a whole new meaning through online and mobile technologies. Instead of having face-to-face interactions, we can now convey our feelings and thoughts through the internet, e-mails, texts, and IMs. We've seen how this is intimately tied to identity and self-presentation, in that we can present ourselves in whatever way we want without anyone ever knowing the truth. This touches upon our last topic, language and self, which I think is the most interesting of them all. We've heard the saying, "Choose your words wisely", so as not to offend others, or so that we can project a certain image around certain people. We all tend to have different registers which completely depends on the situation. When we're with friends, we may speak one way, when we're with family, we may speak another. Words can thus have an effect on status.

This class has definitely given me a greater awareness of words and language in general. Orwell especially has impacted me...I'm always careful to be more selective of my words when I write papers, and even when I speak sometimes. In general though, I think I now tend to analyze what someone says, how they say it, what they "say" versus what they really "mean."

Brief revisit to Online and Mobile Technology

In class we talked about how the future of literature will be vastly different from how it is now, and enormously different from how it used to be a hundred years ago. When we read Gergen's "Social Population and the Populated Self", we contemplated WHY people are so interested in celebrity gossip, when such information really has no direct effect on their lives. This is actually kind of interesting, really. Do the every-day scandals of celebrities add a sense of excitement and thrill that we seem to be lacking in our own lives? Possibly. Then again, it's always been a fundamental part of human nature to gossip anyway. People love gossiping, but (as I read in an article about gossiping sometime earlier), gossip isn't always negative. There's positive gossip too, that can really boost a person's reputation or make them be seen in a more positive light.

Anyway, I got sidetracked from my first point about the future of literature. I brought up Gergen because, as we established, people love to read about celebrity gossip. They may not like reading books, almanacs, or encyclopedias, but they still love reading nonetheless. People aren't reading in an educational capacity (as much) anymore, but they are STILL reading...be they celebrity tabloids, or stuff on the internet...people are now generally reading what they WANT to read, and the internet has afforded us an unlimited amount of ways to do just this. You can google any topic you can possibly think of and find sites upon sites about that one topic. And all at the convenient click of a button. You don't even have to get up and drive your car to the library anymore. You can practically sit back, relax, and veg out while scanning articles about how this or that works, about music and movies, and all that stuff. So in a sense, the internet is certainly educating people about things...and people are learning. But maybe not about geography, or politics, or government, or science, or math...all that "academic" stuff. I used to have an English teacher in high school who knew countless kinds of trivia...she said she was a "library of useless information", all because she spent so much time on the internet looking up things people thought were inconsequential.

Catching up....

I was reviewing some of my class notes from about a month ago (yes, that's about how long it's been since I've posted...oops!), and there were some things I thought were worthy of mentioning on here:

Language and Self:
We talked about how psychological anthropology looks at person and self across cultures, and we investigate how the self varies across different cultures. In western society, it does seem that the self is viewed as an autonomous, independent entity--we focus primarily on individualism, with full agency and a full autonomy. In many other cultures, a person's "selfhood" is viewed in relation to other people; there's a sense of a collective identity. Where does the person fit in with the rest of society? Another important question to think about is, particularly for us, where and how do we find a sense of independence? When do we lose that sense of dependency on people like our caregivers, and assert that we are fully independent?

We also talked about whether or not we are "separate" selves, or present different personas at different times in life. I think we are, in a way, multi-faceted individuals. In some ways, I feel like we're like chameleons, who are able to change "personality traits" and blend in with our social environment. But of course, this begs the question, "Who are we really?" Stripped down to our core, without pretenses and different personas, who are we really? What is our true color? I've found that over the years, my groups of friends have changed, especially in terms of what they're like, personality traits, habits, attitudes, and the like. I've thought about my friends back in grade school, and the friends I have now. And personally I wonder, am I like all of them? Have I adopted their behaviors and made them my own? Am I a combination of my grade school friends' personalities and my college friends' personalities? Sometimes it's hard to figure out, and there are many times when I'm with my college friends and find myself acting the way I did with my grade school friends. This distinction is hard to make, I feel.

This little dilemma I found myself in is also touched upon by Goffman. What's essentially universal about "self" is that it's conveyed as a performance. So there's a performance aspect in self-presentation, and this obviously varies depending on who we're with. But this also brings up another very important question, "is that front necessarily false?" This ties in, once again, to "who is the real you?" If, according to Goffman, you perform for everyone, even yourself at times, then how do you fundamentally define yourself?

In Turkle's article, we talked about the evolution of humankind as "logical animals" to "feeling machines." I think it's absolutely true how, in this age of technology, computers have changed the image of self. When we talked about this, I thought immediately of a good friend of mine. Her computer, for example, has become an "extension" of herself practically. It seems like she has dumped her entire life into her laptop--all her music (which she is completely passionate about), her treasured photos (basically ALL her memories), diary entries, papers, all that good stuff. One time last year, her computer almost crashed, and I swear it was as if her entire world was about to come crashing down on her. She ALMOST broke down in tears. That's how much her computer meant to her. Who knew a laptop could have such sentimental value to someone?

I guess for the general population (who use computers), computers give us the best of both worlds--we gain both isolation and intimacy through computer use. It's interesting that, by nature, people are afraid of solitude and intimacy. Computers, I suppose, are that happy medium, the perfect compromise between both extremes.

I forgot to mention that last week when I was browsing for articles, I found a really interesting one by the New York Times called 

(-: Just Between You and Me ;-)

Just to quickly recap, the article focuses on the use of emoticons...among full-grown adults. Common criticism is that use of emoticons is entirely inappropriate and unprofessional among adults in the work setting. Its use is juvenile and considered acceptable only among youngsters apparently. Employees of corporate offices were found to be exchanging e-mails with emoticons, and the big shots of the companies weren't very happy. Check out the article if you have time...it's pretty interesting. I even learned some emoticons I had never seen before! 

I'm actually having trouble with pasting the link...for some reason, you can't click on it. So just look up the article in New York Times if you can spare the time! 

Internet Crisis

Just last week, our internet and cable were cut. Just like that. My roommate and I were engrossed in our computers, doing this and that on the internet--from checking email, to IMing, facebook, and I was doing some research for one of my classes. The TV was tuned in to CNN in the background, just so we could have background noise and, on occasion, look up to see what was being reported. There's multi-tasking for you! 

A few minutes later, we both realized that our internet wasn't working. "This page cannot be displayed" flashed across our screens, and we quizically looked at each other. We still had full wireless signal, but nothing appeared on the web pages! What was worse, the TV went blank. We reset the modem and cable box, but to no avail. The internet and cable were still down. 

My roommate called Comcast, and much to both our surprise, Comcast disabled services because, apparently, my roommate failed to pay the bill for the past SIXTY-THREE days! I almost killed him. I always assumed that he took care of the bill every month (He usually covers the internet and cable, while I handle the electric). So my roommate was under the impression that Comcast was withdrawing money from his account on a monthly basis to cover the bill. But according to Comcast, he never established one of those automatic-withdrawal accounts, so by luck or something, we still had cable and internet 63 days past payment date. Well, for the next two days, we were completely without internet and cable---and for once, I realized just how much these technologies run my life. Well, cable, not so much...I can make do without watching TV, but the internet...that was the big one. So naturally the next couple days I felt bored without the internet when I was home at the apartment. I had no idea what to do with myself. Most of my school work requires online activity, especially Physics. I check and send email ALL the time...I get on facebook every once in a while to keep track of friends back home. My connection to the rest of the world seemed severed. In this sense, I can understand how electronic media really can, in a sense, instill a sense of being chained. 

I kept on hounding my roommate to take care of the bill ASAP, but it had to wait a while (2 days) because he didn't have enough money in his bank account. I offered to help him take care of it, but he has this whole pride issue where he wouldn't accept a penny. I felt like I was being tortured all the while. I REALLY needed the internet, more than anything else, to do work and contact people for meetings and what not. At one point I ran over to my neighbor's apartment to "borrow" his internet. In any case, I was ecstatic once the internet and cable came back on a couple days later. In a way, I feel like such technologies are taken for granted nowadays, because we don't necessarily realize how much we heavily depend on them. After all, you never realize how much something means to you until it's gone....thankfully, our internet came right back :) 

New Media, Politics and Language...

I was watching CNN earlier, and I heard that this election had the highest voter turnout in approximately 100 years. Why? Apparently because, just like 100 years ago, we're seeing the same person-to-person contact, as one political analyst suggested. Thanks to mobile and online technologies--particularly texts, MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter--younger generations are now socially networking and engaging in political discourse. Online technology is helping to reach out to younger voters and is playing a huge role in forging the political landscape. Websites like Myspace and Facebook, and even blogs, have become vehicles for promoting contact among voters, ultimately allowing them to engage in discussion over the issues. 

This makes me wonder, would we still have such a high voter turnout this election if we didn't have the same online technology we have today? How would this election be different if we didn't have the world wide web at our disposal? 

Always On!

Final Thoughts on Always On

 

In the last chapter, "The People We Become", Baron discusses consequences of being "always on" in a networked and mobile world. The truth is we live in an age of vast information that is easily disseminated--through e-mail, IMs, blogs, personal web pages, texts...we rely so heavily on these technologies that there are major cognitive, personal, and social consequences. 

 

Baron holds that cognitive consequences include reduced productivity when it comes to multi-tasking. Online access and telecommunications has proven to be a huge distraction--both in school and work settings. Workers and students alike wind up spending unnecessary time browsing the web when they should be engaged in their work. After being interrupted by an email, text, or IM alert while working, people often have a hard time getting back to work. Personally, I, myself, find that I waste so much time checking my e-mail, browsing web sites, and calling/texting friends when I SHOULD be doing something as productive as school work. I've come to the realization that I could complete my school work so much earlier if it weren't for these distractions! When I spend a good, solid two hours working diligently on a paper or doing some class reading, I find it particularly rewarding to take a study break and go online...Sure, my "study break" should be about 15 minutes, but I find myself so immersed in, for example, the youtube video I'm watching, I completely lose track of time, and by the time I actually get back to work, it's about an hour later. So much for a study break....

 

 

But it's clearly easy to see how our attention can be so easily diverted from one thing to another, especially where distractions like the internet is involved. I think this is something many people can attest to.

 

When it comes to personal and social consequences, there are far too many to mention. It's definitely part of the human condition to maintain social contact; phones and the internet are the perfect tools for doing so. Baron mentions that people don't want to be alone, naturally, so we find outlets online to fill that void...people log onto AIM, facebook, myspace, for example. The goal, of course, it to satisfy that craving for social interaction, but how genuine and authentic can it truly be online? Online use, especially, can have adverse effects on social skills. People go online to talk, so they won't feel alone, but paradoxically, they are only reinforcing feelings of loneliness and alienation. Real life social interaction can't be done and social skills just can't be practiced if countless of hours are spent lounging around your room and talking to people online. 

Countless teenagers find solace in online chat rooms where they can "make friends"--people with whom they can talk/chat, people who "understand" them. The danger of this, of course, is that such "friends" can turn out to be online predators. Yet even so, how can complete strangers actually be called friends? Go out and make real friends is what I have to say...flesh-and-blood people who can truly be called friends, with real things to say, who can really understand and "be there" in your time of need. 

(Since we're on the topic of "online friends", I'm reminded of facebook and people who brag about having 12,000 "facebook friends", so-called "friends" who they've never seen or heard of before). 

People also oftentimes take the careful time to package their online identities--which may not always be accurate. In any case, it's easy for people to cower behind their computer screens and muster the courage to say things they'd never say in person. But the consequence of spending so much social interaction online is that it detracts from REAL interaction. Sure, maybe people are more bold on AIM or on a text message, but in doing so, they never gain real, legitimate, practical social and personable skills. 

Take flirting for instance. It always annoys me when I hear that someone I know is flirting with someone else through texts or IMs...how real is that? If you really want to flirt with someone, do it in person. It's more meaningful and genuine. I once had a friend who met someone online, and for about one month, they were corresponding through emails, texts, and phone calls. Here's the funny thing--when they actually met IN PERSON--one month later, whatever relationship they had established through texts, emails, and phone calls very rapidly disintegrated. They went on two dates, and that was it. The virtual persona/alter ego they had created had resulted in a skewed image of each other...a lie almost. When they finally confronted the "real" person, well, they were pretty much disappointed. 

All of what was just previously discussed leads to the fact that online (and mobile) interaction takes away the most important factor of human interaction--face-to-face contact. Actual flesh-and-blood encounters generally captures something so much more meaningful and intimate that online encounters NEVER can. 

 

 

In this day and age, we are herded into a landscape where we are increasingly available as communication targets and we incessantly strategize how to control social contact. Personally, I never realized how much I rely on my phone on a daily basis. I call/text friends to find out where they are, what they're doing, what time they can meet up for lunch or to study. Were it not for my phone, I would be completely in the dark...how would I ever find where my friends are so that we can, in fact, meet up? It's also amazing to think how much time is saved by calling/texting a friend...you can easily pick up the phone and in a split second find out that your friend is in the dining hall. Without a phone, you could easily spend an entire day tracking that friend down on campus. Obviously there's a huge convenience factor involved with mobile devices, and since we're always on the go with our very busy schedules, it works out perfectly. 

 

Yet Baron also mentioned that because we are always connected, no matter where we are or what we're doing, or who we're with...we can almost always get a hold of someone, one way or another...be it through a simple phone call, a text, an email, or an IM. This makes it particularly easy for parents to keep track of their kids, or for a couple to be in constant contact with each other. But constant availability isn't necessarily a good thing. Why? Because being "always on" removes a feeling of anticipation. Baron brought up a proverb, "absence makes the heart grow fonder." Parents may lose sight of their kids who are thousands of miles away in college, but when mom decides to call you to catch up, does the sound of your voice compensate for your physical absence? Information communication technologies allows us to be permanently connected, so we can always get up-to-date information on our friends and family. This definitely has its benefits, but I also feel that there's just something incomparably exciting about waiting a year before seeing a best friend or family member. You can spend all hours of the night catching them up, enjoying the other's presence after such a long separation, and this act in itself, I think, is so much more meaningful. Nowadays, however, we have computers and cell phones that would most probably never let that happen. 

 

From all these consequences I just mentioned, it's easy to understand why and how Baron thinks online and mobile technologies are undermining our social fabric. But, according to Baron, it's also undermining our language. As a result of being "always on", we're now seeing degradation in English. IMs and texts are great sources to investigate this phenomenon. I partly think that because texts are character-limited, people find ways to abbreviate words so they can express an entire thought in a single message. It actually struck me when I read that students are using internet lingo, abbreviations, and truncated versions of words in their school work! In all honesty, I have to admit that I am SOMETIMES guilty of the same crime...when I'm taking notes for a very fast-paced lecture class, I'll abbreviate words like "before", "to",  "too", "see", "be" and "you" as b4, 2, c, b, and u. Sometimes, I'll represent "later" as "l8r"--a combination of letters AND numbers (I don't remember where I learned that from, I just thought it was pretty creative when I first saw it).  I'm seeing these abbreviations more and more often online and in texts, and they're taking the world by storm. I say "world" because in Spanish, I've seen "que" represented phonetically as "ke" in texts and IM's. I was even surprised when my own mom texted me with these abbreviations...I'm guessing she learned them from my younger brother. I suppose when older generations are adopting the same lazy use of language as their kids, it's no wonder scholars think language is going down the drain as a result of mobile and online communication.

Sarah Palin and Language

The other day, I was able to find a collection of articles and blog postings on Sarah Palin and Language, a sociolinguistic phenomenon in her own right. I thought this particularly appropriate for our current topic of study. I'm sure you guys might like to see those, along with
other interesting stuff. Here are the links:

Enjoy! =)

Maureen Dowd, Sarah’s Pompom Palaver
NY Times op-ed with delicious humor: from speaking in tongues in Wasilla to channeling Clueless

Language Log has featured a series of posts on the Governor from Alaska
Also Outside
Affective Demonstratives
Palin’s Accent

Daniel Libit, Palin’s Accent Takes Center Stage
Politico dissects the politics and sociolinguistics of the Palin accent

Mr. Verb, Palin’s Accent and Syntax
One big verbal trainwreck?

The Neurocritic, Maverick Maverick Maverick Maverick Maverick Maverick
A mavericky transcript… Includes a bonus, The Sarah Palin Show!

John Schwartz, Who You Callin’ A Maverick
Where the unbranded term actually comes from

Steven Pinker, Everything You Heard Is Wrong
Steven Pinker takes on the “myths,” including that the debate was the real test (an interview is harder). Language Log reacts to Pinker here.

Mr. Verb, Palin and Language
Trying to diagram a Palin sentence. That’s some syntax!

Using Fairclough's Analytical Framework

Hindu and Buddhist rituals herald appointment of 3-year-old living goddess in Nepal

I was looking through articles in the Orlando Times (I thought it'd be interesting to find news that piqued my interest from back home), when I came across a link to "Weird News" that cross-referenced with local, national, and global news. One of the first articles that immediately grabbed my attention was titled "Hindu and Buddhist rituals herald appointment of 3-year-old living Goddess in Nepal." My immediate reaction was one of confusion, and I thought, "why in the world would that be considered 'weird'? If anything, I thought it intriguing and it certainly catered to my personal appreciation for cultural differences--of course, this may be due to the fact that I AM studying Anthropology.  ^_^

At any rate, I read the article and decided to analyze it using the dimensions Fairclough presents. Of course, even without analysis, the article makes for a good, interesting, and enlightening read, but nonetheless, we can apply Fairclough's framework in order to appreciate it for its linguistic merit! 

Before I forget, the article can be accessed through this link: 

 http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/offbeat/sns-ap-as-nepal-living-goddess,0,2830043.story

Okay...on to the analysis: 

This article is written as a means to inform within the public sphere.

(I was a little unclear as to how to distinguish between presuppositions and representations, as they seem to overlap in some cases (at least in my mind)...but until I can figure it out, I'll just mention both as I see fit)

Representation:

The author does not assume the reader to be familiar with this particular social practice, its ancient traditions and customs, or that there is necessarily a "panel of judges who conduct ancient ceremonies" as part of the appointment process. In fact, he provides this information to readers, and even goes on to include a breakdown of the process, as well as the series of tests the child must undergo before she can be appointed the status of goddess. This includes age, physical imperfections, horoscopse, etc. (I thought horoscope was a fascinating test, because at least in Western society, it doesn't seem to be taken seriously. Because of that fact, horoscope may be fore-grounded more strongly). Certainly, however, the author gives a rich description of the girl's costume and ornamentation, as well as the nature of her lifestyle during her temporary "reign" as goddess. All this description help capture an accurate sense of what it's all like; I think a detailed account of the process is provided here mainly because the intended audience is, in fact, foreigners (such as Americans) who are not acquainted with Hindu and Buddhist religious customs and traditions, nor are familiar with this specific ceremonial process. In this case, it is necessary to include this specific information. The author translates "living goddess" into the native word "kumari", obviously a word we wouldn't know. 

In terms of what the text excludes: the author mentions that the girl is a reincarnation of the Hindu deity "Taleju"--are we to be familiar with this deity and her role within Hinduism? There is also a brief mention of Nepal's recently-abolished monarchy--but why it was abolished and what it was like remain unknown to the reader. (We certainly see how the author has control over what he wishes to omit). Furthermore, the author touches on "international and Nepalese laws on child rights", which is violated by the tradition of appointing a new living goddess.  He brings up these "laws", but we do not necessarily know what they entail. 

Presuppositions:

Presuppositions are certainly a part of intertextuality. As Fairclough mentioned, they serve to establish represented realities as convincing. In a broader context, the article presupposes the social practice of a deeply rooted and historical religious tradition and the rites, rituals, and ceremonies that surround it. 

The author's diction is of primary importance. He mentions "living goddess", which implies readers' assumed understanding that goddesses, as divine beings, transcend human mortality. By inserting this word "living", we get the sense that this so-called goddess reincarnated. Also, it is stated that the girl comes from the "impoverished Shakya goldsmith caste"--but this information is given short shrift. Of course, readers are already assumed to be aware of what the caste system is, but why must she be selected from this particular caste? 

The text is primarily active, but has several instances of passive voice:  "the goddesses are wheeled around on a chariot pulled by devotees" and "she will be worshipped by Hindus and Buddhists."

Nominalization:

Evidence of nominalization is clear, as presented first in the article title: "Hindu and Buddhist rituals..." The author imbues concreteness (personification) upon the abstract concept of "rituals", and it is essentially this word that does the performance; it "heralds." Another example of the above: "tradition violates both international and Nepalese laws on child rights" ("tradition" being the subject and performer of action). 

Fairclough's discussion of summaries, formulations, quotations and reactions can also be applied to this article. A direct quote is given by the girl's father, who expresses both his sorrow and pride for his daughter's newly-attained divine role  (He utilizes a form of "cohesion" discussed by Fairclough). The article summarizes the rituals and ceremonies behind the appointment of the "living goddess", as well as her prescribed role during her instatement as the living goddess.  

The Language of Politics

I was browsing through the internet today and found a website about Political Propaganda, and how its success hinges on the careful manipulation of words. The article's essential claim--with which Orwell can certainly agree--is that subversive agencies are giving the highest priority to the corruption of the English language. These "'semantic forgers'", all in the course of promoting their "odious" political correctness, are at work in our schools and colleges, in central and local government, in publishing houses and throughout the mass media.  

Here's more of what I found (Note that some parallels can be drawn between the below elements and Orwell's criticisms): 

Elements of Propaganda

Word approval – Whereby certain words or phrases are given special prominence and 'respectability' by their frequent usage in influential circles and the mass media. People are thus apt to adopt such usages themselves on the grounds that 'what's good enough for the likes of them must be alright.' One need only observe the influence of popular media figures in promoting everyday use of certain words or catch-phrases. Note also how certain profanities once wholly unacceptable in polite company have now become commonplace in the mass media and, as a result, in everyday social intercourse. 

Word disapproval – Whereby certain words or phrases expose the user to disagreeable social reactions like personal abuse, loss of preferment and even of employment, and other forms of victimisation. The offender is put under more or less punishing pressure to 'mind your language' and conform; as witness the rampant 'political correctness' lobbies in education, publishing, the mass media and politics. Such pressures now begin at kindergarten level. 

Repetition – Given enough repetition the 'in' word or phrase will soon replace its predecessors, if only because people don't like to sound 'odd' or behind the times. 

Euphemism – Disguising whatever is intrinsically ugly, repulsive, immoral or otherwise unacceptable behind more attractive, less offensive, or neutral labels. At the everyday level this is just a matter of simple politeness and civilised conduct; but in the hands of unscrupulous politicians and 'social engineers' the euphemism becomes a sinister device to deceive and indoctrinate the public into accepting things which are intrinsically repugnant or contrary to the national interest.

Typical examples are 'gay' for sex pervert; 'love-making' for casual copulation; 'multi-cultural' for mongrelised; 'under-privileged' for parasite; 'entrepreneur' for swindler; 'negotiated settlement' for surrender; 'subsidiarity' for subordination; 'freedom' for anarchy; 'non-judgmental' for indiscriminate; 'value-free' for unprincipled. 

Censorship – May of course go well beyond mere word or phrase disapproval to suppression of certain kinds of publication and of certain writers or speakers by officialdom, academics and the media. Some forms of censorship are of course benign; for example when applied to pornography, national security and libellous material. The credentials and motivation of the censors determine whether or not censorship is benign or malignant. 

Popular appeal – Whereby the propagandist's message is 'packaged' or presented in a way likely to disarm criticism. This is designed to exploit the 'feel-good factor' among the all-too-gullible general public, using popular entertainers and radio/TV soap-operas as vehicles for multi-racialism, feminism, homosexuality, promiscuity, federalism, etc.

The popular appeal element of such propaganda is therefore an artful compound of bogus philanthropy, cloying sentimentality, euphemism and superficiality; all designed to 'help the medicine go down' all those gullible throats. But, in particular, the 'multi-cultural' campaign amounts to the same thing as telling us that adding dirty water to vintage wine produces an exciting new cocktail.

9/29

Political and Persuasive Speech:

First and foremost, I was struck by how critical Orwell was in his article. He reproaches writers, especially political writers, for their unnecessarily verbose, embellished, and complicated style of writing. Essentially, political writing is BAD writing. Personally, I never thought such writing was a bad thing. Sure, such writing may be at first difficult to understand, but I usually associate it as a mark of intelligence and sophistication--scholarly writing. According to Orwell, however, such writing is ridden with inflated speech and complex euphemisms; it's resplendent with mixed images, pre-fabricated phrases, needless repetition, and vagueness.  It is convoluted, complicated and obscures a writer's meaning. After all, it's imagery and meaning that a good writer should always pay heed to. 

It really made me re-examine the way I write as well. Orwell stresses simplicity--and I never tend to write simply!

Orwell identifies several faults found in political and persuasive speech: dying metaphors, operators or verbal false limbs, pretentious diction, and meaningless words.

Here is an excerpt of political discourse, and it is scrutinized using Orwell's faults:

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

The Rhetoric of 9/11: President George W. Bush

Address To a Joint Session of Congress Following 9/11 Attacks

Faults (to name a few):

Orwell might find fault for the use of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism--

"Follow in the path...to where it ends"--might be considered pretentious and very vague

 ..."of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism"--Orwell finds fault in the use of these words; he indicates that such words signify what is undesirable and may also have varying, unspecific meanings.  

"..in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies"--sounds poetic, but in the case of political discourse, it's completely pretentious and lacks meaning; what exactly is being referred to, what and where is "history's unmarked grave of discarded lies?" 

"...every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, every necessary weapon of war"--has repetition and parallelism, but again, according to Orwell, this is "bad writing." This part is vague, pretentious, and misleading--How much is "every"? What kind of "diplomacy", "tool of intelligence", "instrument of law enforcement"? 

9/24 Activity Day!!

The Activity Day planned out for today was very well-done...I enjoyed the video clips that illustrated various forms of speech play and verbal art. 

It was also interesting to see the different play languages the class came up with, and how each "play language" had a different system of rules that defined its usage. Though these were only "play languages"--a linguistic code derived by a small set of rules and applied to an existing language--on a larger scale, they say something about languages in general: a variety of languages exist today as authentic, legitimate means of communication because of rules and regulations that govern their usage. By this definition, all languages are valid. This was a concept we discussed in a previous Linguistic Anthropology class. 

The discussion on jokes was probably my favorite part--we realized that a lot of jokes, especially dirty ones, are culturally defined. "That's what she said" is a phrase that caters to American humor, but probably wouldn't be understood humorously in another country, say China, for example. Nonetheless, we still find that the speech play found in jokes is prevalent across the world--through humor, all cultures find a respite from the seriousness of everyday life. 

In terms of proverbs, we found that a lot of them eventually become outdated and fade into obscurity. Riddles were fun because they use speech play to test human cognitive abilities. 

I actually wish we had more time to play word games at the end of class. We don't immediately realize that word games like "Catch Phrase" serve a particular function in language usage. Since the whole point is to describe a word WITH other words, we are not consciously aware that the game emphasizes application and practice of the metalinguistic function of language! 

Doing Things With Words--Yet Again

I ran into a friend from class at a party on Saturday night, and we randomly started discussing how we do things with words. It's pretty obvious, as it's done on a daily basis, but it's something that's almost subconscious, taken for granted even.  It's hard to imagine how else we could possibly communicate, were it not for our capacity for language. The formation of words to express thoughts and feelings is something truly unique to humans, even though countless of other animals have their own means of communication. None of it, I think, comes even close to our ability to use words, nor is it just as efficient. We sat there and chatted for a good half hour, and all the while, we were building rapport. Later that night, I thought about how critical language is...most of our day-to-day interactions center around our use of words, and all our relationships are a result of the very words we exchange with people. 

9/22

Ok, so I'm a little behind with my blogging...it's now October 1, and it's about time I get caught up. I was thumbing through my notes and realized I had some stuff I wanted to post for class on September 22, when we were focusing on various subtopics and genres. I researched a little about ethnic jokes, and here's some insight I found:

With regard to today's class, I did the reading on Ethnic Jokes, and also found a couple more interesting articles on the topic that I read up on as well. One was titled, "How Ethnic are Ethnic Jokes?" which pretty much explained that ethnic jokes seem to cater to mainstream American humor. That is, mainstream American humor tends to be white and middle class, and serves as the benchmark for all other humor. Essentially, what the majority of Americans recognize and enjoy as ethnic humor is actually pretty far removed from its ethnic roots. It seems the more ethnic comedians succeed with the mainstream, the closer they have brought their humor to mainstream customs and values. It is as if mainstream audiences do not really want ethnic values to be the main ingredient. Rather, they want ethnicity to serve as a spice that will lend new flavor to old jokes. The article gave Jewish, Native American, and Hispanic magical realism (to name a few) as examples of jokes. This article also made another interesting point, in that special interest groups (such as feminists, gays, and disabled people) are now following the lead of ethnic groups in creating their own humor as a replacement for hate speech.

In another article, titled "Ethnic Jokes: An Introduction to Race and Nationality", the author highlighted the exclusiveness of ethnic jokes. In other words, it seemed acceptable if members of one group were to make self-deprecating jokes about themselves, as opposed to mocking another member/members of an outside ethnic group. What really caught my attention in this article was the fact that academics have come up with an interesting justification for racial self-abuse. When blacks call each other "nigger", for example, they are, in a way, usurping the rhetoric of their oppressors. By making it their own, they reduce its power to hurt. I thought this point was very interesting. 

Speech Play and Verbal Art: 

Genres:

• Iconicity 
• Sound Symbolism/ Onomatopoeia 
  
• Reduplication
  
• Disguised Speech, secret codes/languages (ie pig Latin, Klingon?), speech disguise
• Puns 
• Bilingual puns
  
• Pragmatics
  
• Syntax and Semantics
  
• Jokes
• Riddle jokes
  
• Narrative jokes
  
• Interethnic jokes and jokes across social boundaries 
  
• Dirty jokes 
  
• Ethnic jokes 
  
• Metajokes
  
• Put-ons, trickster behavior, trickster tales 
• Proverbs 
• Riddles 
• Verbal Dueling 
• Word games and puzzles 
• Figures of speech
• Antithesis
  
• Anastrophe
  
• Parenthesis
  
• Apposition
  
• Ellipsis
  
• Asyndeton
  
• Polysyndeton
  
• Anaphora
  
• Anadiplosis
  
• Climax
  
• Antimetabole 
  
• Polypopton
  
• Chiasmus 
  

Verbal Art

Verbal Art as Performance

Bauman suggested communication can be accomplished through a couple frameworks--insinuation, joking, imitation, translation, and quotation. I thought insinuation was an interesting one, in that the speaker expresses a message, but also simultaneously attempts to relay a covert message to the listener. The dual meaning in the message is certainly a kind of art on its own. Joking appeals to a sense of humor, and words become comical. Translation, too, can result in varying interpretations and meaning will change. The frameworks just mentioned, however,  are just a few of many.  

He also later mentions folktale, legends, myths, riddles, proverbs, "special codes", figurative language, and gossip as domains of speech activity where verbal art can be analyzed.

It also seems verbal art and performance is culture-specific. Verbal art becomes associated with societal conventions, and meaning is determined by what is commonly agreed upon. Jokes don't have the same meaning across cultures; certain words used in one culture simply don't exist in the culture of another. Even story-telling sometimes requires a certain style of artistic, aesthetic, and descriptive speech. And an excellent story-teller not only demonstrates his ability to entertain a crowd and hold them in rapt attention, but also shows his competence and prestige as a skill-full orator. 

Bauman also notes "ordinary speech" that is stylistically unmarked; there's nothing special or extraordinary about it. Yet in the realm of story-telling, speech AND performance go hand-in-hand; there is something much more enriching and enthralling about this genre of speech activity. 

Bauman also distinguished between the Malagasy's informal speech and "Kabary talk", or a kind of ceremonial, oratory way of speaking . On the same note, I can't help but notice a kind of parallel between Malagasy speech and American speech; we, in a way, have a vaguely similar system. Amongst friends, we find ourselves speaking very informally; our word choice is very lax and casual. Amongst figures of higher status, however, we may change our speech and select words that sound more sophisticated, intelligent, and respectful. Image, reputation, and face become a priority, and we may feel as if we have to leave a good impression. 

 

"Emergent culture" was mentioned, where new meanings and values, new experiences and practices are being created. There is a power inherent in performance that allows the performer to transform his social structure, to gain control over his social world. 

Critique of a Comedy 

Something can certainly be said about humor. It's oftentimes said that laughter is the remedy to any situation. Yet it's easy to overlook the fact that laughter is only made possible through words--very funny words. In the genre of jokes, words are critical. WHAT is said and HOW it's said will most likely determine if a crowd roars in laughter, or if they awkwardly sit there just dazed, confused, and utterly clueless. The other day, I was watching a stand-up comedy show by a rather novice comedian--his name was Omid Djalili and barely started doing stand-up comedy. He had the reputation of a class-clown during his younger years, and even in the work-place he was still entertaining all his colleagues with his witty sense of humor. It wasn't until one of his friends suggested he try out for stand-up gigs that he achieved a little fame in the comedy world. As an Iranian, Omid based most of his comedy acts on stereotypes of Middle Easterners and misinterpretations of them. The skit I was watching began with him joking, in a very thick Middle Eastern accent, about Iranians and, according to him, their "odd habits". Later on, he revealed he was English and began talking in his normal English voice, which also belied a thick English accent. The audience was shocked at the revelation, especially because he seemed like a real, legitimate Iranian; he was so convincing, he truly had the audience fooled. The remainder of the skit, Omid would poke fun at his ethnic background and tell stories of how everyone always mistook him as an Iranian, and how he was always misjudged as a possible terrorist. This comedy act was a great illustration of speech performance and verbal art. Though he was great at telling jokes (how he worded it and what he said), Omid was also skilled at impersonating various accents, and that, in part, contributed to what a huge hit he was. Though the actual words were important, there was also much more involved in this performance--voice tone, pitch, inflection, pauses, facial expressions, body language--all this works in conjunction with WORDS to ultimately create a very entertaining comedy performance. It also showed Omid's control over the performance, as well as his competence as a performer. It's also interesting to note that joking can be an easy way to gain acceptance, to turn the tides and transform something different and feared into something that everyone can appreciate. Through humor and comedy, many comedians like Omid are able to turn misunderstandings, ill-informed notions, and stereotypes into something that's funny, something that people can share, learn from, and value. Omid's self-mockery became a powerful tool to break down stereotypes and debunk myths about his ethnic background. Though the jokes were at his expense, he was able to shed light on and raise awareness about misconceptions regarding his heritage. In this situation, humor became a disguise for his motive to reveal truth about his culture. At the end of his skit, Omid himself admitted that he appealed to his background and certain stereotypes in order to entertain his audience; however, he also imparted an important message--by mocking himself, he hoped to share with the audience an appreciation for cultural diversity. 

Readings 9/8

Jakobson

Any verbal behavior is goal-directed, but the aims are different and the conformity of the means used to the effect aimed at is a problem that evermore preoccupies inquirers into the diverse kinds of verbal communication. 

Distinguish between synchrony and diachrony. 

For any speech community, there exists a unity of language, but this over-all code represents a system of interconnected subcodes; each language encompasses several concurrent patterns which are each characterized by a different function. (ie registers and dialects?) 

Six basic functions of verbal communication:

1. Emotive

2. Poetic

3. Phatic

4. Conative

5.  Referential 

6. Metalingual

Six factors involved in verbal communication:

Addresser --> Context, Message // Contact, Code --> Addressee

(Emotive, expressive function conveying an attitude)

The traditional model of language is confined to three functions: emotive, conative, and referential. 

First person--Addresser

Second person--Addressee

Third person--inanimate or absent object (converted to second person in magic)

Speech is focused on the CODE--it performs a METALINGUAL function. Example: "I'm not following you; what do you mean?" In this case, the addressee checks whether the addresser is using the same speech code. 

Saying "Joan and Margery" versus "Margery and Joan" does not imply you favor Joan over Margery; rather, the former sounds smoother. Thus, VERBAL ART. 

Paronomastic? (definition) 

Epic poetry, focused on the third person, strongly involves the REFERENTIAL function of language. Lyric is oriented toward the first person, and is intimately linked with the EMOTIVE function. Poetry of the second person is imbed with the CONATIVE function. 

Poetry and Metalanguage are in diametrical opposition to each other--metalanguage uses sequence to build an equation, and poetry uses the equation to build a sequence. 

What is the indispensable feature inherent in any piece of poetry? (Recall selection and combination). 

Poetry, in the wider sense of the word, deals with poetic function NOT ONLY in poetry, but also outside of poetry. 

Hymes

Language is a basic science of man because it provides a link between the biological and sociocultural levels. 

Important note: Linguistics will remain the discipline responsible for coordinating knowledge about verbal behavior from the viewpoint of language itself. 

Ethnography of speaking is concerned with the situations and uses, patterns and functions, of speaking as an activity in its own right. 

Syntagmatic vs. Paradigmatic 

Paradigmatic requires discovering a relevant frame or context, identifying the items which contrast within it, and determining the dimensions of contrast for the items within the set so defined. 

The use of a linguistic form identifies a range of meanings. A context can support a range of meanings. When a form is used in a context, it eliminates the meanings possible to that context other than those that form can signal; the context eliminates from consideration the meanings possible to the form other than those that context supports. 

Description of semantic habits depends upon contexts of use to define relevant frames, sets of times, and dimensions of contrast. 

Work on paralinguistics: the heuristic, somewhat intuitive, use of the principle of contrast within a frame. 

Structural analysis means a scientific and moral commitment to the inductive discovery of units, criteria, and patternings that are valid in terms of the system itself. 

-->How many factors and functions are there in a given determinate system?

The delimitation of the speech economy of a group is in relation to a a population or community, however defined, and not in relation to the homogeneity or boundaries of a linguistic code. 

--> If several dialects or languages are in used, all are considered together as part of the speech activity of the group. 

Three aspects of speech economy:

1. Speech events

2. Constituent factors of speech events

3. Functions of speech

SPEECH EVENTS:

1. What are instances of speech events?

2. What classes of speech events are recognized of can be inferred?

3. What are the dimensions of contras,t the distinctive features, which differentiate them? 

FACTORS IN SPEECH EVENTS (which serve as an initial--etic--framework):

1. Sender / Addresser

2. Receiver / Addressee

3. Message form (becomes significant as an aesthetic and stylistic manner)

4. Channel

5. Code (dialect, jargon, vernacular)

6. Topic

7. Setting (Scene, situation)

FUNCTIONS IN SPEECH EVENTS:

What does a personality, society, or culture contribute to the maintenance of a language? 

1. Expressive (Emotive)

2. Directive (Conative, Pragmatic, Rhetorical, Persuasive)

3. Poetic

4. Contact

5. Metalinguistic 

6. Referential

7. Contextual (Situational)

Expressive vs. Referential functions --> Not sure I completely understand the distinction. How can it be applied? What is an actual example in a speech event? 

Directive function of speech depends on maturation--a child, depending on his age, will have different controls of referential function. (IE a child at 1, then 3, then 4)

The three most prominent types of function (referential, expressive, directive) appear to develop in childhood in partial independence of each other and in varying relation to the process of maturation. 

Doing Things With Words

First day of Class: 8/27/08

I really liked the activities planned out for the day, as each illustrated that words can be used in a variety of different contexts. We can use words to entertain, tell stories, write poetry, put on a comedy show/ tell a joke, gossip, hold a meeting, give a speech, etc etc. Words help us understand and give meaning to the world around us; they substantiate abstract thoughts, and allow for the expression of human feelings and emotions. 

Second day of Class: 9/1/08 

Reflecting on the Articles:

1) In Austin's article, we realized that speech is more than a factual statement that just relays information. In a way, speech is a "performative utterance" where the speaker not only SAYS, but DOES. In this way, speaking is essentially a "speech act." An example is "I now christen this ship the ..." The speaker, in addition to uttering these words, also performs it. 

2) Searle's article concerned Speech Act Theory. Illocutionary acts are basically speech acts, and Illocutionary force refers to the specific function a speech act performs. In a given speech act, we aim to produce an effect with a certain kind of underlying intention. Context is crucial. One statement can be spoken in different ways, and meaning can change entirely depending on what word(s) is emphasized, and how tone and inflection are used. 

In class, we used the example "The cat is on the mat" If this sentence were to be spoken aloud, you could convey various emotions, depending on loudness, pitch, tone of voice, and which word(s) you stress strongly. 

We also talked about greeting and welcoming guests. When you say "welcome", do you truly and genuinely MEAN that you gladly welcome the guest into your home? Or is there a hint of annoyance belying what you say, as if you really don't want to welcome that guest in? Furthermore, we also talked about what "welcome" really means and if alternative ways of saying it ALSO mean the same thing. In this case, I think it depends on context--ie WHO you're inviting in. If welcoming someone important into your home, of course you'd be cordial and respectful and would probably say "welcome. Please come in side" On the other hand, if a family member pops up to your front door, it would be more to the effect of "oh hey, come on in." Or, if it were a close friend, "hey", and that one word alone is equivalent to an invitation to come inside. 

...