Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Socioeconomic Status, Linguistic Correctness and College Campuses

By: César Veras

As a college freshman at New York University it was often hard for me to find a place to fit in.  Coming from a High School that was predominately Latin@ and Black with less than 5 percent Asian and one white guy, my ideas of diversity were often exemplified through what today I realize was severe segregation (of course at that time I didn't think it was segregation.  I thought the whites were purposely separating themselves from the Latin@s and Blacks, which of course, holds some truth to it).  To me diversity was having minorities together.  A white person was something I only looked upon as authority (teachers, principals, government officials in the t.v.) and as people who rejected people of my kind.  In addition, now that I reflect on this time of my life, every human interaction I had in which I felt comfortable enough to consider myself with equal agency as others was with people from the neighborhood.  In case you have not seen "In the Heights" Washington Heights is known for its "bodegas" or grocery stores with personnel fluent in Spanish, and English is seeing as something of a rare commodity and something only used by the youth.  Also, the people you find in the streets are mostly Dominican.  Restaurants have people who speak Spanish and offer Dominican food.  Parties are filled with “Coronas” and of course “Presidentes” and the pool hall is as accessible as a "gallera" in the Dominican Republic.  Dancing Merengue, Bachata, Salsa and the all time huge phenomenon Reggaeton was the way to party.  Coming from this background and getting used to thinking life is supposed to be this way lead me to have the biggest culture shock until this day when I tried to immerse myself into New York University culture.  Firstly, I think it's important to state that I am the only person from my family to make it to a 1st tier college.  Most of my cousins are attending community colleges and others are not even looking to pursue a degree, they find it more attractive to pack bags in supermarkets and being completely honest with you, in this institution, sometimes I feel like I would be more comfortable in that situation as well.  Being out of my comfort zone was, and continues to be extremely difficult, an identity crisis indeed. 

This pressure not only made me afraid of my future, but it also bestowed in me the title "future of the family."  I don't only have the "obligation" to somehow climb myself out of the lower social standings in this horrible economy in which even the brightest individuals are having difficulty finding jobs, yet I also have on my shoulders the weight of generations coming from the Dominican Republic who were well off during the Trujillo era, who have an ingrained racial spectrum that trained them to believe that because they are "light skinned" – according to Dominican standards – they should be treated better than anyone darker than them, and who are also bitter because of losing most of their wealth to the Dominican turmoil after the assassination of Trujillo in 1961 and deciding to migrate to New York City after everything became bleak during the Latin American crisis of the "Lost Decade" of the 1980s.  If Junot Diaz was to describe this story, he’d say it’s a fuku indeed.  Who would’ve thought Oscar and I have anything in common haha.  I'd like to say these challenges only make me stronger, but that would be an extreme overstatement.  Facing the workload at New York University only showed me how behind I have been this whole time, but most importantly how now, during my Juinor year, I am still playing catch up with the people around me.  In addition to keeping an internship position at the Langone Medical Center, in the past working nights in order to stop evictions from coming my moms way and dealing with the pressures of one day being "hood and cool" and now being "a lil nerdy" is at the heart of these issues.  In fact, code switching for me is not only a daily phenomenon I play with in order to achieve acceptance, but it's also a surviving mechanism, which can bring severe social implications my way if I don't play with accordingly.  I write this and I pause and think, my language practices show all this just through the way I sound.  I’ll analyze this below.

Latin@'s in top tier university campuses have to struggle with this in a daily basis, especially those who come from not so affluent neighborhoods.  Socioeconomic Status is always at conversation with language use and practices.  In the essay by Bonnie Urciuoli “Whose Spanish? The tension between linguistic correctness and cultural identity”, Urciuoli delves into Spanish use by Latin@s and the trend of transformation it often goes through as Latin@s try to work their way up the social latter and become conscious of their economic and social standing.  She states that “Three particular aspects of this relation stand out: the ways in which ‘knowing Spanish’ operates as part of a pan-Latino identity; the ways in which academic Spanish correctness norms play on students' self-consciousness; and the ways in which Spanish comes to be re-imagined as an element of a globalized version of ethnic identity.”  Often times Latin@s don’t think of their Spanish language use in a college setting until they face questions about their identity’s presumed inferiority, and even though these question of inferiority are not directly asked or presumed upon in the “safe environment” of college campuses, they are indirectly internalized and pragmatically analyzed by the subject.  Every Spanish class reminds us that our Spanish is not good enough.  Every grammar class shows us how our language practices will always be considered inferior according to the infamous “Academia Española”.  Indeed, “Linguistic ideologies, as beliefs, rationales or justifications as to what language is or how it is used, reflect or respond to particular social positions and distributions of power (Woolard 1998: 6-7).”  These positions are often reinforced and performed on a daily basis because “Ideologies of standardization and correctness particularly represent the maintenance of institutional authority.”  These positions come charged with preconceived notions and control the way people run their livelihood.  “Language forms (sounds, grammar, words) are only experienced as forms of social action, indexically embedded: all use of language is connected to and interpreted in relation to the social relations and formations making up people’s lives.”  Therefore, not only is my use of Spanish viewed as inefficient in an academic setting, but it also induced me to practice my “Castellano” (proper Spanish use) in order to hold some social capital in academic Spanish speaking settings.

Below I have a clip from the Tony Award winning musical “In The Heights” which shows this struggle in a creative way.  For many of us living in the heights, the lotto is something of elusive hope, my mom plays it every time there’s a big jackpot in the Mega Lotto and whenever I complain to her about her failed affinity to one day become lucky she says the famously advertised phrase, “oye, nunca se sabe” (“hey, you never know”). 







For real, though.
Imagine how it would feel
goin' real slow
down the highway of life
with no regrets
and no breakin' your neck for respect
or a paycheck

Who would have thought that Lyn Miranda was even thinking about language use when writing these powerful words.  Maybe this is why my mother feels she has to play the lotto everytime she gets the chance, because if she had the capacity to exercise language in an “intelligible” way, she would not be struggling to put food in our refrigerator.  Who would’ve thought language brings respect…

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Code Switching Among Men and Women

By Rebecca Kemp

In class lately we’ve talked quite a bit about code-switching, whether between languages or vernaculars, and a great deal of that analysis has been greatly intertwined with racial identity. For this blog post, I wanted to explore another intersection of language wherein code-switching occurs: gender.

The following video is an ABC production posted on their website, interviewing the female author of a book called “Code Switching: How to Talk So Men Will Listen”. Audrey Nelson, the author, is a businesswoman specifically hired by Fortune 500 companies to teach how to communicate in different situations (work, home, etc). In this gem of an interview there are a large variety of ways that code-switching is used through identities of gender:






One of the initial complaints exposed within the interview is how “men just don’t listen well” and that it could be possibly because of the fact men and women are biologically wired differently. Dr. Nelson comments on this and implicates the debate of nature v. nurture (frequently discussed in diverging sexual identities) in the process of how women are much more chatty than men: in a woman’s brain, the transition from left to right hemisphere is better and a catalyst is thereby emitted, “igniting language”. An example of this active language cited by the author is how younger girls are typically more talkative than boys.



Nelson also briefly mentions how men do indeed have bigger brains (the culture of bigger is better) but also poses the question of quality vs. quantity. The crux of what the book’s argument seems to be, however, lies in the regions of the brain. As discussed, women seem to “ignite language”, a reflection of their interpersonal skills. Women tend to be more empathetic and compassionate, but that “doesn’t mean men don’t feel”. The goal of the book is to understand the differences in language between men and women, and how to bridge the linguistic gap of the female/male binary. Men, as verbal communicators, tend to be direct—women, on the other side, have a language structure similar to a pyramid (he asks a question, she has a story). In order for women to get men to listen to them, they must talk how men like it.



The code switching we’ve discussed in class, however, is noticeably different: code switching, according to Glenn. A. Martinez in his piece “Mexican American Code Switching” is the “linguistic practice of sustaining usage of more than one language in a single sentence or discourse event” (94). Martinez states that code switching can be used in multiple contexts and goes on to further analyze the linguistic characteristics of Mexican Americans. If we apply this information within a gender binary, we are able to more eloquently see Dr. Nelson’s goal in writing her book: that women will learn to employ code switching when talking with men to more affectively communicate. In Nelson’s situation, the matrix language and the embedded language are within English vernacular: they are genderized. The matrix language, according to Nelson, is English speech that is marked as “female”, and the embedded language is English speech marked as “male”. Code switching, as Martinez claims, is utilized “in order to make a specific point or achieve a specific social effect” (94): e.g., women being able to talk to men in such a way that they will listen (thereby speaking in their “native” language). The code switching that Nelson implicates within her book can thus be assumed as situational code switching: as in, the participant, the topic, or the setting of the conversation motivates it. Code switching can “thus serve to change or to conform to the specific rights and obligations sets that emerge in conversational settings” (105). Additionally, it can be used to “change the rights and obligations set of a conversation from what it presently is to what they expect it to be” (104). Dr. Nelson is effectively advocating for women to manipulate men through the use of code switching—women, in using Dr. Nelson’s advice, are to toy with a situation in order to communicate with men in a way that helps achieve their ultimate goals.



Because of the women’s brain and its tendency to “ignite language”, code switching seems like the perfect opportunity to learn to effectively communicate with men. As Martinez recounts within his piece on Mexican Americans, “[they] use code switching in order to fulfill certain linguistic functions that are part and parcel of the reality of being bilingual. Code switching is used to fill lexical gaps, to preserve the force of linguistic routines, and in triggered response to other code switches. In addition, however, code switching is used to fulfill social obligations” (107). Code switching among men and women can be amended from Martinez’s Mexican American dichotomy: women use code switching in order to successfully communicate with men. Their bilingualism can be attributed to the English speech that is gendered (separate forms of English vernacular that can be coded as inherently masculine or inherently feminine) and their code switching from feminine to masculine speech is to fill the lexical gaps inherent within these different forms of communication. Code switching in this case is also used to fulfill social obligations, as Martinez says.



While initially, code switching between men and women may seem to be somewhat silly, in analyzing this interview as well as going over Martinez’s work I’ve been able to recognize more inherent forms of code switching that are a part of our every day lives. I can identity multiple ways in which men communicate with one another in ways that women do not (one thing that came to mind and can be examined later: handshakes!)—And because of this difference, there certainly are missing pieces (such as lexical gaps, as Martinez mentioned). It is worth noting Dr. Nelson’s point in writing this book: the inherent differences between men and women in regards to speech, and the attempts as a result of this to more strongly and successfully communicate with men in a way that acknowledges the gendered qualities of language.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Verily, That's Right


by Tamara Whitehouse

I’d like to open with the Kelis parody image I mentioned in class on Monday:



Furthermore:



These images are examples of style shifting, or a change in register.  In Kelis’s pop song, "Milkshake," the register is a ‘normal,’ ‘modern,’ relatively standard form of casual English.  In the first image here, however, the register is wildly different- it appears to be in the style of older English, such as would appear in Chaucer or Shakespeare.  (In reality, the English in this image was probably never considered ‘correct;’ I doubt that ‘they’re like’ was proper usage or even made sense in the time period the image attempts to portray, but I digress.)  In the second image, the register is not ‘old-style English,’ but rather simply hyper-standard English, with the British spelling of ‘flavored’ to boot.

This is significant because, as discussed in class, different registers can be or become associated with different categories of person.  An academic register is associated with those in academia, such as professors, while a military register is associated with soldiers, and so on. Therefore, in laughing at what seems to be an incongruous or nonsensical style shift, we can learn something about what we associate with those styles and what we associate with the original meaning of the lyrics. The language used in Kelis’s lyrics might be associated with a young, street-smart person, while the language used in these images might be associated variously with a stereotypical stuffy old British nerd or a stuffy old British medieval peasant.

What’s interesting about these is that the humor comes not just from the incongruity between what we know the lyrics actually are, and what has been written on the images.  It comes from the incongruity between the associations we have with Kelis’s register, and the associations we have with the registers in the images. It’s a conflict between our perception of Kelis, and our perception of what sort of person might speak using the other registers.

Morgan quotes extensively from a stand-up act by comedian Chris Rock, wherein he asks: “How the **** did you expect him (an educated Black man) to sound?... What voice were you looking to come out his mouth?” (Morgan, 288.)  If we were to again imagine the speakers of the registers in these images, the stuffy nerds and medieval peasants, these images would of course be what we would expect the speakers of those registers to look like.  Similarly, we might expect Kelis’s lyrics to come from someone who probably looks and speaks a lot like Kelis.  Those are the voices we ‘expect’ these characters to sound like.

As alluded to by Chris Rock, though, why do we hold those expectations and why are they so biased?  Why do we expect the hyperstandard speech from a white person, and why is it humorous when placed in relation to lyrics sung by an African American?  We expect Kelis’s lyrics to come from her; to standardize them, or to hyperstandardize them, is funny- but perhaps it is funny for the wrong reasons.  These style shifts may be incongruous partly because of the expectations we hold in mind- we are already aware of who sang these lyrics first, and for whatever reason, standardizing the words goes against our expectations. 

The images are also significant, however, because they point to something else Morgan discusses.  She argues that while the concept that someone “may be saying and meaning something more (or something else) than what is literally spoken” is common, the ability to decode these hidden meanings requires more than instinct.  She also notes that “some may recognize” these hidden meanings, “but not others” (Morgan, 283).   Related to these images, I have to ask: Do any of us really know what Kelis meant by “milkshake” and “yard” in her lyrics?  I believe I have a reasonably good idea, but I couldn’t (for example) provide an exact definition.   I have a good enough idea that I would be distressed if one of my younger cousins began singing the song erroneously believing that Kelis is literally talking about a milk product and a backyard- a mistake in comprehension that Morgan also touches upon (Morgan, 285).  This mistake in comprehension can lead to two people speaking about two completely different things, which is why it is so vital to conversation that we be able to understand when someone is speaking using double language.

In laughing at these images, we are not only laughing at something funny- we are also signaling that we know what register the words are ‘supposed’ to be in, we know what ulterior meaning the words are ‘supposed’ to have, and we believe that both of these ‘facts’ are subverted by the registers used.  We may also be laughing because, once written in a different register, the ulterior meaning of the words seems to be lost- suddenly, the lyrics really are simply discussing literal milkshakes, since we can’t seem to associate the registers used with the ulterior meanings present when Kelis sings the song herself.  And by sharing these images with others, we have the expectation and assumption that others will find them humorous, as well- that others will have the same expectations as we do, and that others will understand that the style shifting depicted is inappropriate.  I am making these same assumptions right now, as I type this- for this blog entry to ‘work,’ everyone has to understand the strangeness of the style shifting in those two images.  A lack of understanding and a conflict would both arise if anyone did not.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Arizona Tewa and Regional Hip-hop Identity

Alex Edelstein


In Paul Kroskrity’s chapter, “Language Ideologies in the Expression and Representation of Arizona Tewa Identity”, he emphasizes the myriad roles language can play in distinguishing and maintaining identity. Through his ethnographic fieldwork with the Arizona Tewa, Kroskrity puts forth a more complicated understanding of Edward Dozier’s initial work regarding language and multicultural identity. By reserving their own language for specific ritualistic practices, only using English and Hopi in other multicultural contexts, Kroskrity demonstrates the ways in which the Arizona Tewa used language to construct particular sociocultural identities, rigidly tied to individual contexts.
For the Arizona Tewa, it is crucial to be able to simultaneously signal their relationship to other native groups (the Hopi), while also preserving a sacred space solely for their own use. As a result, they constantly shift between English, Hopi, and their own traditional ethnic language, switching practices in order to convey a particular sociocultural identity; they were either performing as generally indigenous people (whereby they would employ Hopi), or they signaled their more specific Tewa self (during their highly ritualized ceremonies). This type of ‘linguistic indexing of identity’ directly parallels the regionalized language of hip-hop; depending on context, hip-hop participants will employ certain linguistic features in order to either signal their hip-hop identity, or more specifically, their region of origin.
As we have discussed throughout the course of the semester, there are a number of stereotypes surrounding AAVE and ‘hip-hop language’ that get applied to non-linguistic features like race, ethnicity, culture, etc. In order to more specifically communicate these complex identities, hip-hop participants have developed varying practices, to be put into use depending on situational contexts. At times, an artist or fan may simply wish to signal his/her authenticity as a member of the larger community. In these more general examples, a basic knowledge of AAVE would be a good starting point. This is similar to Cecelia Cutler’s discussion of Mike, the affluent, white teenager, who first employed AAVE to signal his alliance with hip-hop culture. However, there exist times within the hip-hop community in which individuals wish to further define their specific individualized identities. It is in these spaces where other symbiotic practices are enacted.
Oftentimes, hip-hop language is derived from regionalized slang or speech acts. One particular example of this is the hip-hop subculture, hyphy. Based in the San Francisco/Oakland Bay area, hyphy rap is comprised almost entirely of a slang lexicon specific to the bay region. Hyphy is more than just a regionalized way of speaking, though, incorporating a whole variety of cultural components, including dance, clothing, drugs, cars, etc. In order to preserve hyphy’s sacred relationship to the bay, the subgenre’s pioneers have foregone various record deals and opportunities to make the music a national sensation. As a result, much like the Arizona Tewa and their religious rituals, hyphy language is preserved for the culture of the bay region. Although some of the artists have inevitably reached the national scene (most notably E-40), hyphy remains a distinctly bay phenomenon. Instead of pushing their local work on the nation, hyphy artists have teamed up with other regional stars to spread their work. Similar to the Tewa’s relationship with the neighboring Hopi, E-40 and others have collaborated with comparable movements like Lil’ Jon’s crunk music, based in Atlanta. These popular collaborations allow hyphy artists to be recognized as vital members of the hip-hop community at-large, while also preserving a space in which they can perform their sacred linguistic acts in their home region.

In the Ghostride the Whip documentary trailer (above), you are able to get a basic sense of the unique cultural components that hyphy incorporates. By linking a profoundly unique language to cultural practices like ghostriding the whip or gas, break, dippin’, hyphy creates a distinct regional identity that is separate from the whole of hip-hop. As you watch the trailer, you see the ways in which these speech acts signal more than just hip-hop community; hyphy participants view their cultural practices as vital to their specific regional identities; just as the video articulates, “Hyphy is the bay area culture, it’s a movement”. Through creating this complex regional identity, hyphy has provided people with a way to signal their individuality in the greater hip-hop world, while preserving a sense of community.
This sense of identity has become a surprisingly important factor in bay area politics, as hyphy artists and fans alike have banded together to combat social issues that have, at one time or another, plagued the region. Numerous songs have been crafted to publicly criticize the area’s complex relationship with the Oakland police department, especially following the 2009 New Year’s day shooting of Oscar Grant. This specific event prompted a number of hyphy artist-led protests, including Mistah F.A.B. and Zumbi (of Zion I). 
 (For a sample of Hyphy language: Mistah F.A.B.- Ghost Ride It)
By looking closely at the relationship between hyphy language and regional identity, we are able to better understand the ways that language plays an undeniable role in signaling identity. Further, we see the ways in which language allows us to shift identities depending on our situational contexts. With Kroskrity’s analysis of the linguistic shifting of the Arizona Tewa, it becomes clear that it is essential for people to maintain a certain linguistic flexibility with respect to identity. Similarly, the many regionalized hip-hop subcultures provide opportunities for community members to simultaneously identify with the larger hip-hop community as a whole, while also preserving a more nuanced, authentic regional identity.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

FOB (no - not Fall Out Boy, the other kind)

Jessica Colaizzi


          In recent weeks, one of the main points examined in class is cultural stereotyping based on linguistic practices. We often draw from previous assumptions and standardized conceptions about an individual or group of people in order to create a stereotype. Over time we have come to understand stereotypy as a way of representing a certain person or place with an oversimplified and fixed image or idea. For example, any given city can often be stereotyped as polluted and industrialized, even though there are many urban spaces that don’t follow these characteristics. But enough of that. Let me get to the point. I want to take a good look at the ways in which people have used language in order to mask one identity and impersonate another. Let’s take a look at Exhibit A – Italian Stereotypes. This short skit composed by a famous cast from Saturday Night Live put a funny spin on undercover FBI work with the ever infamous Italian American gangster (played by Robert DeNiro). Before I give any more description, I want you – the audience – to take a look for yourself just how the comedian tries to portray a middle-aged Italian man. Enjoy!
                                               

          I’ll give you a moment to take that all in. What you just saw was acting on two different platforms:  The comedian is acting as an undercover FBI agent who is then acting as your run-of-the-mill Italian American, encompassing what seems to be every aspect of a "typical" Italian. But aside from the big hair, tacky outfit, and exaggerated hand gestures, the comedian puts a huge emphasis on the way he speaks. Here, there is a “wannabe” Italian (obviously for the sake of being an undercover agent) who often drops the consonants from the ends of words and says phrases like “fuggedda bout it” and “bustin beans”. Even though this is a fictional scenario with fictional characters, we can see how the appropriation of a culture (more specifically the use of accents and phrases) brings to the surface a question of individual authenticity.


          Now you might be wondering just how this relates to the material we have covered in class. What I find most interesting is the ability for someone to take on a certain identity by adopting certain linguistic practices. This adoption of specific vocabulary and terms reflects the ideal of acceptance. In the example above, it is obvious that the undercover agent tried to “blend in” with the rest of the Italians that were present at the gathering. In order to be “taken in like a son” and retrieve important information, he had to play the role of somebody who spoke and acted like one of the others. We can recontextualize the situation and look at the perspective of Desi teens in California. In Shalini Shankar’s article, “Speaking Like A Model Minority”, we can see the significant role that language plays in determining who belongs where in the social structure of a high school. We learn about a group of Desi teens who attend high school in the Silicon Valley area and we find out how the ways that they speak determine what “group” they belong to. To get started, let’s meet the two main groups that are formed based on their linguistic differences:



FOBs (Fresh of the Boat)

          These teens are often considered to be of lower-middle class. They speak Desi Accented English combined with a lot of slang and hip-hop influenced terms as well as Punjabi. This group of teens is considered marginalized because of the way they speak and assert great pride over their non-American identity. FOBs consider multiple spaces to be "private", thus believing it to be acceptable to speak Punjabi. They make great efforts to differentiate themselves from their popular Desi peers.

The Popular Crowd ("Model Minority")

          These Desi teens are part of the middle/upper class and usually look down upon the routine usage of the slang/Punjabi style of speaking. They are the popular students at their public school and use Standard English almost all the time in order to assimilate into American culture. Shankar observes that they code switch (use both proper English and Punjabi/slag as strategic methods). 

          Besides their ancestry, what ties these two groups of high schoolers together is the way that they use language to identify themselves with and from each other. It's one of the biggest factors that determines their acceptance into a certain group, just like the way our good friend from SNL used diction to fit into the Italian American "group". At the same time, language is also what puts people up for judgment of authenticity. There are numerous instances where people identify themselves with a certain culture due to their upbringing, taste in music, style, and practice of certain traditions. In the scenarios such as the ones which have been brought to the surface in this post, many use language to display a certain authenticity to their culture. I think that language is very significant to one's character and fidelity to a culture or nationality. I don't mean to say that if someone who is actually Japanese by heritage but doesn't speak Japanese isn't a "real" Japanese person. I just believe that especially in the world we live in today, linguistic practices used in our every day lives allows us to identify with and show loyalty to a culture. Staying on the same track as individual authenticity formed by use of a languge, we can analyze Spanish speakers of both “school-taught” Spanish and Spanish of regional variations and dialect in Urciuoli’s article “Whose Spanish”. In this piece, Urciuoli examines how many Hispanic students in America struggle to harmonize their use of Spanish from home with the Standard Spanish that is used in academic settings. In order to remain linguistically unmarked, many Latino/as shy away from speaking their own kind of Spanish especially when they go to college. Urciuoli describes how an intricate correspondance is formed by “the ways in which academic Spanish correctness norms play on students’ self-consciousness; and the ways in which Spanish comes to be re-imagined as an element of a globalized version of ethnic identity” (1). Once again, we see that whatever language we speak and how we speak it greatly influences our adjustment into any social settings. Whether in a public high school or private university, our relationship with the way we speak affects our association with the people we’re surrounded by as well as with our own identity.
 

Just FOBulous


by Desiree Andersen

The term FOB or fresh off the boat was frequently used in my high school to refer to newly arrived Asians from various backgrounds. They were typically very separate groups from the “preppy Asians” that had assimilated to American high school culture. Just over 20 percent of my high school was Asian, that is more than the African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders combined. Reading the Shalini Shankar reminded me immensely of this experience.
The popular Desi teens of the Shankar article were much like the preppy Asians from my high school. In many ways their families and themselves lived up to the model minority stereotype. There are a large amount of Asian business owners in my community. They live in nice houses, drive nice cars and are overall of the upper middle class. From the outside looking in it seems that many of them have achieved the so-called American dream. This experience seems a lot like the popular Desi teens' experience and their parents' with the Silicon Valley technology boom.
In looking up visual media centered around FOBs and FOB style, it was interesting to find that there were many variations of FOBs. The Asians called FOBs in my high school were primarily Korean, though any other Asian was free to call themselves or others FOBs. In many of the videos online, there are very different visual depictions of FOBs. Different videos showed FOBs of different origins. Shankar focuses on Desi FOBs and there looks to be similar standards out there for this stereotype. In particular, the Desi accented English or DAE came into criticism by this pair:




The people in this video point out the ways in which the Desi accent annoys them. It is incredibly interesting that they call the linguistic practices that they bring up embarrassing. Perhaps this is because people's use of language is one of the elements people use to judge others and because the accent diverts from the white middle class standard. The pair in the video come up with guidelines for FOB speech, such as no excessive use of the “R” sound. The people in this video also criticize others for making things plural that should not be. Unfortunately, it is these markers such as excessive use of certain sounds that allow for people to be easily marked as being a FOB.
Language is a characteristic that is easy to use to place people in different categories, whether those categories are accurate or not. Sometimes certain accents or ways of speaking are mistaken for other styles i.e. mistaking Southern English practices for African American Vernacular English. Similar inaccuracies are brought about with the FOB stereotype. Shankar also points out that many of the teens labeled FOB are not actually newly arrived immigrants at all. Instead, they use the FOB speaking style as a characteristic for inclusion into that group. It must also be pointed out that one of the main differences between popular and FOB Desi teens is class based. By labeling the lower classed Desi teens as FOBS, the upper middle class popular Desi teens claim their American identity.
Shankar found that the teens he studied intermixed DAE with California accented English. A lot of the so-called FOBs in my high school were criticized for having accented English or for simply having trouble with certain words. Like the Silicon Valley FOBs, the teens in my high school would fluctuate between plain accents, Korean and accented English. The SiliconValley teens used African American slang and hip-hop lyrics were also intertwined into their linguistic practices. Though Shankar does not argue this, I thought this incorporation was intriguing. It is as if the FOB teens claimed their American identity in different ways. Slang and hip hop can be considered just as American as the typical standard, since it is in the U.S. that these styles have emerged.
The same duo from the video above came up with a series they titled “Rosetta Stone FOB.” They have videos for several science terms, geography and ghetto phrases (seen below):



Shankar pointed out that FOB use of slang, hip hop and Spanish was all tied to humor just as in this video. He argues that humor is used as a point of solidarity for the boys and girls in “an otherwise dull and alienating school environment” (281). The FOBs in Shankar's article, he argued, did not feel like school was working for them in the ways it appeared to be for the popular Desi teens. Perhaps this is tied to class or the ways they are viewed within the school by both their peers and their teachers. As Shankar discussed, the popular Desi teens view the FOBs based on their ways of speaking. Using DAE and other nonstandard uses of language, probably elicited questionable views from teachers for seemingly being immigrant students.
Shankar mentioned that the Desi teens in general were often confused for being Latino based on their appearance. This mistaken identity could have only been reinforced by the use of slang, Spanish and DAE as stereotypes of what immigrants are like prevail. It is no wonder that they do not believe in their education system, since the system repeatedly did not recognize their heritage. On the other hand, others within the system that were able to assimilate linguistically as well as actually to the middle class standard, while their families, and as a result the FOB group, were not able to live up to this model minority standard.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Just Like the Movies, Part I: Language and Nationality Ideologies, Differentiation and Markedness in the Oscar Categories


By Ilene Palacios

Exhibits A & B: Javier Bardem & Alejandro González Iñárritu:

Alejandro González Iñárritu y Javier BardemDirector Alejandro González Iñárritu and actor Javier Bardem on the set of Biutiful.

Javier Bardem is known as a Spanish actor born in the Canary Islands, an autonomous community off the coast of Africa that fell under Spanish rule starting from the early 1400s. “Los canarios” are usually also considered to be racially Spanish, but Canarian dialects are distinct from Peninsular Spanish. He was the first Spanish actor to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role for his part in Before Night Falls. He was also the first to win for Best Supporting Actor, which he won for his haunting role in the Cohen brothers’ adaptation of No Country for Old Men in 2007.
Bardem got a second Best Actor nomination this year for his role in Mexico City-born director Alejandro González Iñárritu’s (a.k.a. “el Negro” for his dark skin) film Biutiful, nominated for Best Foreign Language Film. Iñárritu was the first Mexican to be nominated for Best Director. His four feature films have included a variety of languages, Spanish above all, have been nominated for a dozen Oscars, and his first feature 2000’s Amores Perros, was also nominated for Best Foreign Language Film. His second most recent film Babel, was nominated for seven awards including Best Motion Picture and Best Director.

Exhibits Aₐ & Bₐ: Javier and Alejandro, Marked
            Being un-American/foreigners/Spanish-speakers, etc., there are a few ways, outside of their work per se that Javier Bardem and Alejandro González Iñárritu have been marked. Here are examples for each of them.
Aₐ In response to an article by the Hollywood Reporter:

Last September the Hollywood Reporter guessed as much when it published a story titled “Whitest Oscars in 10 years,” warning everyone that no actors of color were being considered for this year’s top prizes. This year’s awards does include one person of color, Javier Bardem from Spain who starred in “Biutiful.”
           
            Grammatical errors aside, this post calls Javier Bardem a ‘person of color’ – which, being Spanish/Canarian/European, he is not. It is difficult to tell here if the writer was mapping his native language of Spanish onto his ‘color’ or race or if his foreignness, his being not (White) American was to blame for this faux pas.
Being an actor that does work in both English and Spanish, Javier’s imperfect use of English and his ‘natural’ use of Spanish is a source of anxiety for some. In his interview after winning Best Supporting Actor (for an American movie filmed in English) in 2007 one journalist starts off by saying to Bardem, “We want you to share some of this joy…in English” and laughing.

If you are so inclined to see that full interview:
            Bₐ: Iñárritu, along with the two other, according to the NY Times, of Mexico’s “most successful, acclaimed directors” formed a sort of production conglomerate called Cha Cha Cha films. Hollywood has taken it upon itself to thus call this group “The Three Amigos”. Ironically, this trio created the conglomerate to use its range of skills and style as a point of leverage in Hollywood, i.e. for American-produced films.
Kaye Playhouse at Hunter College


=
            Talk about  a triple whammy of a culture and language suffering erasure, appropriation and mildly offensive iconization...and...hmm actually with that pose, I see the resemblance...
Marking and Not Marking Films and People through the “Film in a Foreign Language” Oscar Category

Awarding people and films based on a particular set of U.S. standards that utilize somewhat arbitrary categories can be limiting and perhaps problematic. Things can get even more muddled and ambiguous when race, nationality and language come into play. I doubt many people would claim that the various participants of the Academy Awards are representative, be they various ethnic, racial and gender groups within the U.S., people from countries around the world or speakers of different languages. The Best Foreign Language Film category, created in 1956, seems to aim to address race, nationality and language all in one, but it may be the most limiting and inconsistent category of all, and they way it plays out seems to be based on a number of intertwining inconsistencies, assumptions and folk notions.

For instance:

1)    The category assumes (U.S.) English as the Standard language for film
2)    The nominees for the category are chosen not by language(s) but by country in/from which a film is produced (although many American films nowadays are physically and artistically made [e.g. filmed, edited] internationally)
3)    A country is allowed to pick only one film to represent it, i.e. linguistically, which, coupled with events and notions of the film, could lead to the film being an reference for iconization and fractal recursivity related to the country’s people and erasure of dialects and other language use in that country
4)    Even though a film can include multiple languages and dialects of a language, as well as multiple countries in which it is produced, usually one language in one form is chosen for the films

The Best Foreign Language Film category seems not only to try to bear and pass down the burden or representation of the entire world, but also to map and overlap nationality or country with language together, and might even run the risk of dragging in assumptions about ethnicity and race in with the mix. There are many points of fractal recursivity happening and it is difficult to see at what point of difference the process began.
Iñárritu’s film Babel was nominated for Best Picture, not Best Foreign Language Film, even though its director is Mexican and it contained Arabic, Spanish, Japanese, a Japanese variety of Sign Language (in addition to English), because it was an American-produced film. The first film Javier Bardem was nominated for, Before Night Falls, contained English, Spanish, Russian and French, but he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor among other English-speaking actors, and won. He also was nominated for Best Actor for Iñárritu’s Biutiful, a Foreign Language Film nominee.
This inconsistency and erasure that occurs in this category come somewhat to light when the Best Foreign Language Film nominees are presented at the Academy Awards show. This occurs in the form of reading out the nominees’ film titles in English or  the film’s own, “foreign” language:

            Perhaps the actress couldn’t pronounce those two film titles she read in English, or maybe it was how the films were marketed. The actress reading out the nominees here reads the nominees out, introducing them by saying, “From (insert country here)” instead of “In (insert language here)”, and reads their titles are written on the screen behind her. The Milk of Sorrow (in Spanish, La teta asustada, literally “the frightened breast”) and The White Ribbon (in German, Das Weisse Band) are read out in the language and country the film represents.
The White Ribbon is actually an Austrian-German production, but it represented Germany – and the German language. The Milk of Sorrow was produced by both Peru and Spain and contained both Spanish and Quechua, but it only represented one country and one language, Peru and Spanish, respectively.


One Nation, One Language, One People…One Category?

Based on these examples, one might conclude the following about the Academy Awards and its categorizations and conceptions about language and nationality (and perhaps following that thread, race):

·         Actors’ ‘foreignness’ (I.e. they are ‘foreign-made’, ‘produced’ in another country) can mark them, especially in relation to U.S. folk notions and ideologies about ‘normal’ or ‘appropriate’ language use, nationality and race in relation to English/American/White
·         Acting whether done in English or another language, is thought of as more universal, language-less – perhaps ironically; separate categorization for actors is not necessary (because actors act like someone else anyway)
·         A film can contain (a) “foreign” language(s)/actors/directors/filming/editing, but isn’t really considered as such unless it’s produced in another country, and thus would require a separate category of nomination.
·         Language and Nationality are almost interchangeable terms by which a film can be defined
·         The Academy Awards’ (i.e. the U.S.) language ideology  of one language/nation/people are imposed on Foreign Language nominees and assumes a similar language ideology applies for every country in the world; the nominated films must adhere to the Academy's rules and be the sole choice of one country with one language to represent that country -- this has implications for what a film represents of a country’s people as being of a particular monolingual (i.e. one dialect too), monoethnic, and perhaps monoracial essence 
o   Perhaps in line with the devaluation of Bilingualism in the U.S. and valuation of “Standard English”?
o   Probably erase other countries’ ideologies about language and its use and prevalence
·         A language and a Country can be commodified and represented in a film

The only country that can be said to predominantly speak English, Canada, was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film for a film made in that country’s dialect of French. Never has a film from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. been nominated because mainly English is spoken there; they are foreign countries, but they are English-speaking countries so they cannot qualify for this award though the award is given out to filmmakers of a country, not who are speakers of a language.
One might wonder what might happen if Pakistan and India, which list English as an official language, ever submitted an English-language film if it would nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Category. Would their foreignness and distance of geography, ethnicity and race trump the similarity of language then? How much would such films need to fit the ‘Foreign Language Film profile’, the U.S./Hollywood ideology about language, in order to even be considered for nomination?


Additional References
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/movies/26roht.html?_r=1

Just Like the Movies, Part II: Racial & Ethnic Implications in Neutral Lexicon?

By Ilene Palacios 

Throughout the progression of the film Malcolm X – directed by Spike Lee and based on parts of Malcolm X’s autobiography – there are many moments of realization and change in Malcolm, starting from when he was still Malcolm Little/“Detroit Red” to the man he was when he died after he began to realize the universality of many human conditions in the face of oppression and power. One of these moments occurred towards the beginning of the film when Malcolm was reading words from the dictionary with his soon-to-be spiritual mentor, Baines. See from 8:00-10:00 at the following video link:



Baines and Malcolm note the difference between the various lexical meanings of “black” and “white” according to the dictionary. The definitions to not directly pertain to race or skin color, but even in their basic definitions of the colors and the essence of what they represent, there are very obvious differences. They assess the meanings and take them to be obviously mapped onto the races ‘White’ and ‘Black’ (in this case, proper nouns/adjectives). At the end of the clip, Malcolm and Baines attribute the negative definitions and mapping of the terms to the dictionary being “written by White folks” and Malcolm turns to the author page to find his assumptions confirmed.

We have discussed in class how language has many levels of creation and perpetuation; while a large degree of language structures are created at the personal exchange level, they, as well as lexical meanings can also be dictated from above, from elites who have the power and control of institutions to standardize language via public policy (i.e. education, laws) and other linguistic resources, such as dictionaries. Dictionaries have this authority about them, a correctness (i.e. of spelling, of meaning) and an authenticity.

In the Hill reading entitled “Linguistic Appropriation: The History of White Racism is Embedded in American English” the author analyzes a number of examples of linguistic appropriation of other forms of language from different historical points in U.S. History, particularly of Native American languages, Black English Vernacular and Spanish. In the introduction he argues:

“In linguistic appropriation words are commodified and become property, with their meanings and uses determined by their owners. To impose these meanings and uses, speakers of the target languages must dominate speakers of the donor language. The dominant groups must control the institutions through which the linguistic resources circulate...[and] both formal and informal mechanisms through which the linguistic behavior of the donor population can be regulated. White racism in the United States exhibits this kind of dominance...it must involve elites...” (Hill, 2).

While in the film’s example there was no appropriation of Black language that is controlled and circulated by Whites to achieve a form of racism, there is still certainly a commodification of language, institutional and informal control of language and a, alleged subsequent dominance of a group through meanings, using language as a mechanism. In their article entitled, “Linguistic Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation”, Irvine and Gal wrote that their main concerns were within the sociolinguistic process, the dynamics of sociolinguistic differentiation and the language ideologies structures and consequences. They add that these consequences concern boundaries which can contribute to language change, scholarship or academic descriptions of language (i.e. metalinguistic) and those which concern politics (Irvine/Gal, 36).

Through the objectification of words into a list available and authenticated in a dictionary), there is a similar objectification of their meanings. Even so, the meanings are still subject to change, as language is always changing. Both words with meanings implicit to people and those that directly call out people can be used, in their own ways for hurt and ultimately control and disenfranchisement.

In the film scene Baines is trying to show Malcolm of the relativity of language and how it can adhere to those in power, and how even in its neutral form can be ultimately used to portray a people in a certain way, used as a form of control. One could make a connection between the difference in the meaning of black/white in a non-racialized form could be mapped onto people when the terms are used in a human, racial context, i.e. Black people would be “dark”, “ominous” etc. and White people would be “innocent” or “pure”.

So what is worse and more hurtful overall: words whose meanings can underlie negative ideas that can be mapped onto people, or words that are directly used to negatively and hurtfully refer to people?

Comedian Louis C.K. memorably referenced the philosophy that ‘there-are-no bad-words-we-make-them-bad’. He quite hilariously talks about this notion in relation to some ‘offensive words’: the vulgar and heavy “C-word” and the historically-heavy and oftentimes controversial “N-word” (and before this section of the act, the use and folk meanings of word “f**got”):

C.K. – utilizing the all-cleansing form of comedy – talks about words being used (or not used) because their lexical definitions are offensive (or not offensive). He provides two different examples, one that doesn’t have a racial or recent historical weight to it and one that does, speaking to how words can become offensive for different reasons and how the levels of offensiveness can or cannot vary and change to certain people and over time.

Can we define the popular positive or communal usage of the “N-word” in some circles as mere appropriation? Does appropriation always need to be from a ‘dominant’ group? Shall we call it “reverse reappropriation” like how people use the term “reverse racism”; is it a one-way street?

If you consider the appropriation conception of “flattening” in relation to this situation, you might argue for appropriation. In the Hill article an example of “flattening” was giving regarding redefining of certain Native American terms for symbolic gains, as was the case for for Ojibwas word “basadinaa” which meant valley, and was changed in English to mean “crown of the valley” or “key of the valley”, possibly to make the area seem greater and more beautiful (Hill, 5). In this case, those languages were appropriated and to a large degree eradicated, but in both the cases of the “N-word” and “basadinaa” usage and lexical meanings and use of certain words were altered in similar ways for positive gain.

Can a word from a ‘dominated’ group or that is pretty much inherently offensive ever shake its historical meaning so easily, i.e. without near language and people eradication first? If language can be standardized from above, is the elite definition of the word and the elite ideology about language use (i.e. appropriateness or offensiveness of using certain words) what really gets implanted into language users’ minds when they use or even just think about a word? Whose lexical meanings matter more and who has the right to say a word is offensive? (And with the internet, whose information is even ‘elite’?)

Some historical ‘clarification’ or extrapolation and inclusion of quotes that use the word are not present in the online Merriam-Webster definition of this word. For the “N-word” (the repeated use of which would annoy Louis C.K. according to the above clip) there is a large degree of explanation as to how wrong, offensive and inappropriate it is; although, there is no reference to use of the word when it ends in the letter ‘a’. Merriam-Webster might be referencing n***a when it calls the “N-word” “usually offensive” instead of “now probably most offensive word in the English language” as Dictionary.com does; this might make the former more objective, current and less moralizing or just making lighter of the word – it’s hard to tell. Please see all of the definition and interesting historical reference of this word at the following link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/NIGGER.

In order to help him learn about his oppression while simultaneously educating him, Baines has Malcolm copy the terms and definitions of every word in the dictionary. When one has little else to go on besides the language that is not set in stone but is printed and validated in books and institutions, one has little choice but to learn the language, and, if one is so inclined, to use that knowledge as both a universal point of reference but also one that points to power mechanism, subtle or obvious as they may be. A lot can be learned, but like Collins wrote about, even expert opinion can be wrong, or at the very least not one group’s language ideologies necessarily work for another group. Like in the case of the “N-word” and BEV, language meaning and use can be changed (respectively) to fit other needs and desires of some members of a group who may not have as much power and control as elites, but can at least affirm themselves and gain recognition as legitimate voices, and do so in their own words.

The Bilingual Experience - Street vs. Straight


By: Cynthia Camacho


In analyzing how college students relate to being both Latino and bilingual, Urciuoli discusses the complex relationship between their views of using localized or “street” dialects of Spanish and academic or “proper” Spanish as an academic subject.  Signaling such as code switching and/or using other references such as clothing that identify an appropriation of “Latinidad” can often be markers for staking the claim of a Latino identity.  There are also issues associated with the claim of being an “authentic” Latino vs. “non-authentic”.  


For example if a Latino identifies as bilingual, then the specific type of Spanish which they speak can be used to identify them, and this identification can have either positive, negative, or neutral perceptions based on the observer.  Specifically, it can divide them into unique categories, which tend to be associated with different levels of social hierarchical status, which differentiate their ethnic class ratios, ethnographies, and/or subgroups.

In my personal experience, the norms of Spanish language correctness have impacted my self-perception, and have sometimes left me in a juxtaposed position to those who are highly skilled in academic Spanish.  Being brought up in a Cuban urbanized neighborhood, often speaking using localized forms of street slang in my daily encounters with the neighborhood “bodega”, left me fluent in a form of Spanish which is often seen as marked by those who feel academic Spanish is the only proper form.  As a result, when I am in certain company, I find myself trying to speak a more traditional Spanish, which makes it harder for others to classify me simply by my linguistic form.  I feel that by spending the time to learn a non-marked dialect of the Spanish language, I will enable myself to be in a position where the others that I am interacting with can focus on my intellect, as opposed to whatever marked or pre-constructed notions that may be associated with my urban Latino upbringing.  

  
Speaking a localized dialect of Spanish is often used as part of viewing “Latino” as a globalized identity.  For example when I am in another city or country, and I come across another Spanish speaking individual, the realization that our dialects mark a Spanish upbringing, immediately creates a bond to where both of us are part of Latino community.

From this starting point, we often begin to share stories of our diverse ancestry and background, which while often geographically, culturally, and sociologically different, is connected through our common roots in the Spanish language and identifies us as part of the global Latino community.  This identification can include code switching, which provides more information and context about the speakers and their backgrounds than can often be conveyed in a conversation limited to a single dialect.  The location of the conversation can often have a significant impact on the connection and self identification that takes place.  For instance, if I meet another Spanish speaking individual in my home town of Miami, where the percentage of Latino persons is very high, I am more likely to categorize them more quickly in to an ethnic classification, such as Cuban, Puerto Rican, Venezuelan, etc. and the context of our conversation will likely continue as we are juxtaposed by our heritage.  We will for example talk about our families, where they were born, the traditions that we have inherited, and the similarities and the differences between the neighborhoods that we grew up in.  On the other hand, if I meet another Spanish speaking Latino at a college class at NYU, where the percentage of Latino students is in the 10% range, we are more likely to continue our conversation from the context of being part of the NYU Latino community, in a similar way to what Urciuoli described when she said that Latino’s often categorize themselves as such in “response to the overwhelming whiteness of the environment” that they are in.  I think that what she is trying to say is that people in general have a need to identify as part of a larger group.  However, we also like the group to be somewhat exclusive, therefore depending on the surrounding context, we will act in different ways to express our membership in these subgroups.  The idea that I am part of a 10% Latino subgroup at NYU is interesting because although I can closely identify with others in that subgroup.  From a purely statistical perspective, the majority of my interactions will clearly be with those who are on the outside of the subgroup.   As a result, when even a small group of individuals within the subgroup come together, we tend to have an immediate connection.  

According to Urciuoli, it is the overwhelming sense of being in a small minority group that brings this solidary response of rethinking myself as “Latino” vs. Cuban or some other subgroup.  As such, when I want it to, my Latino identity can now be more easily morphed through my attendance at NYU into a more academically centered version of myself.  While some people who I associate with would potentially see my use of traditional or classroom Spanish as highbrow, others would see it as an indicator of my expanded knowledge and therefore as symbolic capital which potentially provides me with a foundation for upward mobility in society.  In addition, where in the past, my use of street or slang Spanish may have been viewed as a cultural deficit, but now my ability to speak a more traditional or classroom version of the language can be used to cast my bilingualism as an important and valuable resource that I bring to any number of business or social situations.   Of course as needed, I can always interlace the street or slang words and code switch to blend into a situation as needed.   When viewed this way, my current state of bilingual includes two forms of Spanish, and two forms of English (proper and street), and can use my ability to switch all of these based on the social context that I am in at any given time.

The article from Urciuoli clarified a number of ways in which bilingual skills are about much more than the ability to speak two languages.  For example, many of the students in her article described their bilingual experiences as a “shared culture”, whereby they shared not only the ability to speak two languages, but also to identify with each other through the sharing of different cultural bonds such as music, dancing, food, and of course differences in dialect.  Additionally, the potential to leverage the emergence of Spanish as a “World Language”, can increase the value of someone in the corporate workplace with bilingual skills that include Spanish.

 
In conclusion, after the reading, I now more clearly understand that there are many dimensions to bilingualism beyond the obvious ability to speak two languages.  Although language and culture so often go hand in hand, it is interesting to think about the possibility of classroom or “correct” Spanish to bring bilingual skills to the forefront of my marketable skills and social expansion.  Many possibilities extend from the thinking brought out in this article, and if nothing else, it is clear that the ability to understand and control the various dialects and to code switch according to the current set of circumstances is a very powerful skill that is worth nurturing.