Does America Appreciate Bilingualism?

by Monica Burton

During the last weeks of class we discussed language education policies in American schools. The readings from this past week discussed certain language policies in the previous decade. Education for students speaking English as a second language was hotly contested and one can argue that the same is true today.

In “Tongue-Tied: The Lives of Multilingual Children in Public Education” Richard Rodriguez describes his experience as a Spanish-Speaking child acclimating to an American, monolingual school. While he felt a sense of loss when his parents began enforcing English around the house, his conclusion on this educational policy is that “while one suffers a diminished sense of private individuality by becoming assimilated into public society, such assimilation makes possible the achievement of public individuality.” Others are not so supportive of a diminished sense of private self. Norma Gonzalez explains the benefits of dual-language education, emphasizing the idea that children in this program are open to and able to understand multiple cultures outside of their own.

Yet, in America, bilingualism and multilingualism from an early age are not looked upon as standard or even preferable, at least when one of those languages is Spanish. Instead, English is seen as a base language that all students must be proficient in before they learn other languages, a practice that does not begin until middle school. In fact, a 2008 Center for Applied Linguistics survey showed that most students who study any foreign language in the United States do not begin to do so before the age of 14. Equally alarming is the fact that this same study revealed that between 1997 and 2008 language education in U.S. public schools decreased at both the elementary and middle school levels. The same survey revealed that students at schools located in rural areas and students of lower socioeconomic status had less access to foreign language instruction. It is apparent that in the United States, languages are not a priority for public schools. Perhaps this is the reason for the inadequate programs for many students learning English as a second language.

A chart based on the Center for Applied Linguistics survey data

The problems with the 1998 English only movement in California were explained in a resolution from the Linguistic Society of America and in Otto Santa Ana’s “Brown Tide Rising.” The opposition to the movement had a lot to do with the “one language, one nation” theory that purports a connection between language and nationality. Many feared the effects of a rising “Brown Tide,” to use Santa Ana’s metaphor. Does this fear still exist?

Ten years after this fierce opposition, the country may be a little more comfortable with the idea that the Latino population is quickly leaving behind its position as a statistical minority. At least this is the conclusion one could draw from the increased instances of Spanish dual language programs in public schools. According to the same Center for Applied Linguistics survey that revealed a lack of language education, Spanish is one of few languages to increase at the elementary school level, jumping nine percent. And just this past week, Southern Methodist University’s news site, www.smudailycampus.com, published an article on the rise in dual-language schools in Texas. The article cites census data that shows a 41.8 percent increase in the Hispanic population in Texas since 2000. The article goes on to say that non-Hispanic parents are responding to this shift by supporting Spanish instruction for their children and that public schools’ stigmatized ESL programs are becoming dual-language programs, open to Spanish speakers and English speakers alike.

Lakewood Elementary School in Dallas, Texas has a dual language program.

One ESL program in particular was also in the news recently. MIT News reported that an MIT professor designed a curriculum for an ESL classroom that incorporated linguistics in Malden, Massachusetts. The public high school teacher who suggested the idea thought that it would allow students to compare and contrast English with their native languages.

In the class the program was designed for, students spoke a wide variety of languages. The new lessons took into account the students’ individual needs and a scientific approach to language prevented the idea that English is right and other languages wrong from entering into the classroom. Using linguistics, students’ home languages became classroom material and were validated for their particular characteristics and commonalities. This is a far cry from certain ESL programs that teach English from an English-only viewpoint to students for whom the language is foreign and, perhaps, inaccessible. In this classroom, bilingualism is touted as an asset because this is the belief of linguists. Hopefully, this program will spread, giving other ESL teachers the training necessary to utilize such a curriculum. 

The ESL program at Malden High School teaches Linguistics.

It is difficult to say how much language ideologies have changed in the 21^st century. While certain evidence suggests that language is not a priority (in fact, less of a priority than it has been in the past), other recent news has hinted at a change in our views on multilingualism and the treatment of ESL students. The readings from linguists and other language scholars have analyzed the positive effects of the acknowledgement and validation of students’ first languages and the downsides of English-only policies. What has changed to allow for greater acceptance of other languages if such an acceptance has indeed taken place?

It could be said that bilingualism is seen as a skill, but a skill placed on the low end of priority lists by policy makers. While there has been a shift in the recognition of the usefulness of speaking multiple languages on the part of the public, it is not enough of a priority when budget cuts force scrimping on certain programs. The disparity in the availability of languages in public versus private schools and the higher instances of language instruction in wealthier and metropolitan areas is evidence of this, as is the popularity of nannies who speak languages other than English, a trend described in this New York Times article.

A chart based on the Center for Applied Linguistics survey data

It seems that the American public has become more aware of the benefits of multilingualism. One would hope that it is only a matter of time before policymakers follow suit so that fewer students will experience the loss of self that Rodriguez did living in a society supporting English only education. 

Contextualizing Ebonics and Academic Speech Acts

Alex Edelstein

Inherent within the Oakland Ebonics controversy is the debate surrounding AAVE’s legitimacy as an educationally viable linguistic practice. From our class discussions and readings we see that there is a three-pronged debate about this issue, with each side appealing to a combination of linguistic practices and sociocultural stereotypes. Beyond the practical linguistic discussion of whether or not Ebonics is somehow an improper or substandard dialect of English is the cultural discourse surrounding the community of speakers who employ Ebonics in a variety of contexts. By positioning Ebonics in an academic space, the Oakland Unified School District effectively sought to remove present stigma surrounding the linguistic practices of a minority group. However, I will argue, that there is real danger in trying to appropriate a linguistic practice tied to the ‘streets’, as rappers like Big L suggest (to be addressed later with the use of his song, “Ebonics”), in the context of a standardized academic setting. What is at stake in this debate is the potential for AAVE to lose its standing as a counter discourse to standard modes of linguistic representation, in the sense that context is immensely important in understanding Ebonics and its potential for representing identity. In changing this context, it is possible that Ebonics will lose its ability to voice a particular sociolinguistic identity, rendering it useless at the hands of white, dominant hegemony.

Looking at ways in which Ebonics is used in non-academic environments is useful for investigating its potential for constructing and voicing non-normative identities. Ebonics’ relationship to hip-hop is well-documented, considering the national discourse surrounding hip-hop lyrics and the use of AAVE slang. Extrapolating this relationship one step further, we can see the close ties that Ebonics has to street culture (through the medium of hip-hop music). Thus, it is important to take note of the necessarily non-academic contexts in which AAVE is often employed. When trying to understanding why so many African-Americans opposed to the Oakland School District’s proposed legislation, Theresa Perry realized that the ambivalence went beyond a sense of shared cultural shame towards AAVE:

I began to understand that besides being bothered by the equation of Black Language with one of its most informal varieties, these individuals were also concerned about the implication that Black Language doesn’t have multiple varieties, oral and written, formal and informal, vernacular and literary, as well as the excision from the public conversation of the notion that for African Americans, language use is fundamentally and exquisitely contextual (Perry).

For a concrete example of Ebonics being employed to convey a level of street authenticity, we can look at rapper Big L’s hit track, “Ebonics”. The composition serves s a de facto dictionary, translating hip-hop colloquialisms from Ebonics to Standard English. Further, Big L is not interested in translating medical terminology or academically relevant texts, but rather elucidating its value to the streets. With lyrics explicating street phrases such as “My weed smoke is my la/A ki of coke is a pie/When I’m lifted I’m high/With new clothes on, I’m fly”, L makes it clear that he is in fact, speaking “criminal slang”, and not the language of the academic world. 

This distinction in what contexts the language is intended for is particularly significant for the debate surrounding Ebonics and education, as there occurs a shift in meaning when the contexts change. As we’ve discussed previously, individuals are constantly code-switching depending on contexts, and it seems inappropriate to assume that those who use AAVE don’t also exhibit those same tendencies. As a result, it is important to consider the ways in which individuals utilize AAVE, and how that usage shifts when in an academic context. Based on our understanding of linguistic identities as necessarily tied to context, it would follow that the AAVE used in the classroom would be infinitely different from that of the streets. In this sense, bringing AAVE into the classroom does little to acknowledge the value of non-normative types of linguistic identities, as the AAVE of the streets is still positioned as non-academic, or non-standard.

The problem of trying to standardize AAVE is not necessarily tied to legitimizing it in the sense of academia, but in looking at the sociocultural circumstances that cause it to be devalued in the first place. To make mandates like the OUSD does, using only sociolinguistic evidence to substantiate claims, ignores the cultural inequities that led to this situation to begin with. In doing so, the school district is in effect only addressing the symptoms of a larger sociocultural issue, rather than developing solutions to prevent the rise of such structural inequities. We see in cultural phenomena, like hip-hop, the ways in which language depends on construct, as well as how language shifts meaning when those contexts change. As such, it seems more prudent to address the circumstances outside of the classroom that create an academic context of inequality surrounding those who employ AAVE. Rather than focus on an isolated context in which AAVE is used, we could do more by looking at how and why AAVE is demeaned on a larger level, and see the resulting changes in more specific contexts like the classroom. 

The Language that Defines Us

By Cynthia Camacho

In the land of the “Free People”, touching more particularly on the subject on whether or not children should be taught using Ebonics, is the purpose of the Oakland School board Ebonics resolution.  I feel that a great justice was done in preserving the language and culture of the local citizens.  African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is about maintaining roots to an indigenous culture, one that is native to those who are descendants to slaves. Dating back to colonialism, blacks in America have communicated in their own language.  Instruction to African Americans in their primary language is essential in tracing back their heritage. Asking a person to give up their native tongue is synonymous to the genocide of one’s culture.  This can also be viewed as an unethical deracinating experience forced onto the culturally rich by a mainstream white anti-cultural society. Regardless of the origin of one’s language, be it AAVE, American Indian, Spanish, or any other linguistic form, all people should be given the opportunity to be educated in their primary language.  Only then are they given equal opportunity to truly receive a formal education. It is only by fully being educated in one language that you can even begin to be taught another. I’m telling you there is definitely some half-baked educational formula that keeps trying to oppress the less privileged bunch.

According to Elaine Richardson, black culture has been essential in the contribution to American Pop-Culture. With the rise of pro-athletes as role models and AAV used in mainstream ads to market to the masses, it has been proven that the Niger-Congo influences of Ebonics are part of the Anglo-culture and deserve a rightful place as a historic language in the Unites States. Whether it’s President Bill Clinton’s appearance on the Arsenio Hall Show while playing Blues music on his saxophone, trying to prove he was down with the people, during his pre-presidential campaigning days, or Ricky Lakes and Jenny Jones popular use of black idioms such as “sho nuff” and “is your man a playa”, AAVE has found its way into the mainstream of American culture.

In the article, Richardson also states that the reality is that individuals must check their linguistic and cultural identity at the golden door if the mainstreams status quo’s definition of success is to be thier destination. In my opinion, society has yet to master an unbiased educational plan that allows  an equal opportunity at upward mobility.  Specifically, I think of Dubois, who speaks about how ‘humanity sternly deprecates inequality in their opportunities for development’.  There is no sense to Dubois ideology and I could not be more in aggreeance with his statement, which recognizes how the culturally different must conform in order to succeed.  Though it is clear that the small minority who fight through the barriers in the primary education system and gain a coveted seat at a great university do indeed get to expand their opportunities by reading journals and in-depth studies meant to broaden their knowledge and perspective, there is no reason to ignore the trend of literacy lag in the Oakland black community.  In this community alone, students with just below a C average represent 53% of the districts population, and 71% of the district’s special education population.  Given those statistics, something drastic needed to be done, and perhaps the Oakland Ebonics Resolution that is implementing new educational programs, acknowledging Ebonics as language, will be the drastic option to help turn the situation around.  There are always signs of resistance that allow for the sometime distant but constant hollows of the underdogs to voice their opinions.  In this case they are putting on their boxing gloves and initiating a movement towards change.  It’s a historic moment in times where being the “other” gets put under the microscope for the purpose of gaining equality and enacting social change.  It’s this kind of action that needs to occur in order to put the Anti-Ebonics movement to bed, allowing at last for federal funds to be released in order to help the educational programs that are desperately in need of this higher levels of funding.

AAVE can trace it's roots to a combination of
West African tribal languages and US English

Why is it that America has not changed much since the 1990’s?  The AAVE/Ebonics as a legitimate language movement is a fledging force that is finally taking some of the steps necesary to achieve much needed social change. By looking within the heart of the Oakland School districts Ebonics resolution, and subsequent amendment, Richardson has clearly shed a ray of light on the severity of unequal education in this country.  As identified by Brown vs Board of education, even when students are guaranteed the right to equal education, there still lies a grey area, whereas as not all students will learn in curriculums that are developed to a cookie cutter format.  Agency must stand forth and allow the culturally different, minority groups, and those who are not so pocket rich to receive the same programs that can be modified in an ”a la cart” course format.  They should have access to the same-programs, which currently cater to the needs of the rich and socially privileged folks, helping their kids to be tracked on the “limited passenger highways to higher paying jobs.   To put it in plain English, schools need to give access to education with richer and more customized curricula, higher paid and trained professionals who are able to cater to the learning needs these under privileged students,  just like they do for the wealthier upper class.  How did it take this long for someone to patch up this crack in the system?  How does it take this long to understand and accept that the facts and statistics demand new and radical approaches to learning?

In conclusion, minority groups and individuals have the right to be schooled in their own primary language, one that has been given proper acknowledgement and respect by society, and one that is supportive of their background both as a culture as well as an individual.   If individuals do not receive this level of support in their primary language, then they are really not  truly given the right to be formally be educated in the mainstream Anglo-Saxon culture,  which of course is the heavy weight hegemonic class.  If this nation’s policies indeed include the right to an equal education for all, then we should explore every available avenue to find the best ways to deliver it.

Links:

Linguistic Profiling African American English Origin

http://youtu.be/EPGx1icFdLQ

Ricki Lake - Interracial Dating

http://youtu.be/RAEpyyqNZ5o

Erasing th Leaders of Tomorrow

by Abigail Garcia

In 1996, the Oakland Public School System decided to instate some changes in order to help the underachieving African American students in their schools. They came up with a resolution that made Black Language/Ebonics “a legitimate, rule-based, systematic language” that was going to be used in classrooms in order to help the children transition from nonstandard English to standard English. Since many of the African- American children were falling behind where the “average grade point average was a D +”, there needed to be some change. With change, however, came controversy.

According to Thersea Perry’s piece, I ’on Know why They be Trippin, the media represented the Oakland resolution in a bad light: “ [The] mainstream media presented the Oakland resolution as a decision by the school board to abandon the teaching of Standard English and in its stead to teach Black Language/Ebonics.” Statements such as these were far from the truth because the school board had no intentions of taking away Standard English from the African American children: " Even after the spokespeople for the Oakland School Board, the superintendent, and the members of the school board had asserted over and over again that the school system was not abandoning the teaching of Standard English, TV news accounts continued to lead with this claim."  The school board just wanted to use Ebonics to aid the children with a transition from the non-standard English spoken at home to the standard English spoken in schools.

In the following video clip, one can see how the media and commentators misinterpreted what the Oakland School Board was trying to do. 

In the VH1’s “I love the ‘90s!” we see clips of how the media misrepresented the purpose of the resolution and how the critics viewed the situation. When the compared the different words such as  “Hand” to “Han” , they misinterpreted what the school board was trying to do. The teachers were teaching the students how to convert words from non-standard to standard, not the other way around.

Even though I could not agree with what the majority of  the uneducated commentators said, they pointed out an interesting word: “Ivorybonics”, referring to slang or non-Standard English spoken by the Caucasian population.  

Why is there no controversy on how the Caucasian people use slang?  Using words such as “rad” and “squirt” would have no place in a professional world; so, why is it that the African Americans are the ones that are picked on?

Around the time of the Oakland Public School resolution, BET (Black Entertainment Television) aired a special called Ebonics on Our Voices, which consisted of African American intellectuals who came together to discuss the popular topic. 

Toni Cook, a member of the Oakland School Board said that their goal for the resolution was to bridge the gap between the language spoken at home and the language spoken in school. According to her, the resolution is an expansion of the 1981 Standard English Proficiency Program that was aimed toward African American children. This program was based on the same principles as that of a bilingual education, whose final goal is to make children literate in standard English. It is very interesting to see how similar the Oakland School Board resolution is to bilingual education. In past readings in this class, we have noticed a pattern with government funds and protest against programs such as these. Is it possible that those in power cut resources in order to suppress the most needy?

According to Cook, the resolution has been used in twenty-six schools. In three of those schools, children are performing above grade level. What does it say about the resolution? It worked!! If there is proof that it works, why are there so many debates against them?

In the same BET special, Joe Clark and Faye Vaugh- Cooke, a professor of Language and Communication at the University of Howard, emphasized the hypocrisy behind the entire movement against the resolution. According to Clark, the people who are refusing to accept that Black people have their own language seem to think that their language is better and “marking African Americans as intellectually incompetent to them.” In Perry’s article, she states a similar conclusion: “the Oakland resolution would precipitate a national conversation about race, specifically about the mental and moral capacities of Black people.” It seems like Clark and Perry believe that this movement is about representing Ebonics in a negative light because it has to do with African Americans, one of the most historically oppressed people in the history of the United States of America.  Vaugh-Cooke does not understand why it is such a big deal that Oakland wants to help the African American youth learn standard English and concludes that the topic deals with something deeper than just language and more about race and social progress.

In the “What Wasn’t Said” section of Perry’s article, she emphasizes the importance of language to the African American community. Leaders such as Oprah, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and Skip Griffin were fluent in Standard English and could use it when speaking to crowds to make a difference in the community. In the mist of the controversy, Perry mentions that “the most significant omission in discussions about Black Language/Ebonics…was the failure to examine the meaning and function of the literacy acts…the failure to see these literacy acts as distinct, interconnected, and interdependent moments that are most powerful when they function for freedom, for racial uplift, leadership, citizenship.” When the media misrepresented what the purpose of the Oakland resolution was, they never included why or how important it was for African American children to learn standard English in order to benefit themselves and their community.

I think that topics such as social progress and community empowerment are topics that the media and those in charge of imposing their negative views on the topic want to avoid. Why would they want the African American community, a group that has been picked on for years to finally become empowered and educated? If there is a program that gives African Americans the tools to progress, after sometime, one would see more educated African Americans appearing in high offices and continuing the legacy of those great leaders. This is exactly what those in power want to avoid.

According to David Roediger, “whiteness is that complex admixture of longing and hate that white  people have for African Americans, their cultural formations, and their cultural products.” The resolution was about race and language, but more about White Americans wanting to keep their place in society without any additional competition: “ It underconceptualizes what occurred to simply label the discourse of the mainstream media about the Oakland resolution as racist. The media’s reaction to the Oakland resolution provides us with a powerful, contemporary example of how whiteness function in the American society…White Americans are attracted to, embrace, at least superficially, African Americans who would not be the kinds of writers dramatists or scholars they are if they were not rooted in and operating out of African American linguistic traditions.” The “superficial” relationship Terry speaks of can easily be seen in today’s media and representation of African Americans with: Tracy Morgan and Tyler Perry.

Morgan and Tyler Perry use Ebonics in their works, but not in a way that empowers the community. They use it to portray African Americans in a negative light to those who watch the movies. Whether their work is good or not, they are receiving awards and  nominations for it. Could they be receiving these praises in order to continue on representing the African American community in that way? Are they being motivated to shine a negative light on the community by giving the children bad examples on ways they should be acting in the world? Why is there no movement  against the types of movies that shine a bad light on the community, but a movement against teaching African American children how to speak in a way that would advance their social status in today's society? 

In conclusion, the Oakland Public School Resolution controversy was less about the teaching of standard English to African American children and more about maintaining the current standing of the majority of African Americans in the social ladder in this society. It is illogical to take away a program that could help African American children progress in this competitive world, where the use of standard English is important. I think that the Oakland Public School system had a great idea to help these children, but it was unfortunate that they received so much opposition due to the misrepresentation in the media and the rigid social constructs in society

The Ebonic Plague

-Jessica Colaizzi


          First off, I would like to make clear that the title of this post does in no way, shape, or form necessarily reflect my attitudes toward the debate over legitimizing African American Vernacular English in American culture. The reference of ebonics as a “contagious disease” is out of humor, guided by the rapid movement that this form of speech has led. With that said, let’s take a look at how ebonics has evolved from a simple term used to reference African American Vernacular English to a term that has stirred up major controversy among people in the United States. 
          In recent years, many people across the nation have protested the practice of ebonics. I think it is important to address the concerns of many Americans who support and go against the use of “Black English” in public and private establishments and to also confront the recognition of ebonics as a separate language in this country. I shall begin with an informal definition of Ebonics, created and voiced by people of this generation on a website appropriately called UrbanDictionary.com. Take a look at the snapshot I got of the most popular entry and highly ranked definition on the page (6395 thumbs up).

          Although the source from which this definition originates is not the most reliable one, I still feel that it holds certain significance because it is a term that is interpreted by people of today’s culture. Here we see ebonics being described in a negative way, a form of speech seen as the result of failing to meet basic English practices and generally seen as unfavorable. The “ebonic plague” references an ultimate decline in society, stemming from the continued unwelcomed use of ebonics in everyday speech. However, even though many feel like ebonics is detrimental to the prosperity of a society, people on the Oakland School Board feel as though the use of ebonics in the classroom will facilitate the process of students learning Standard English. In the Oakland Resolutions on Ebonics, administrators and concerned members of society advocated the use of African American Vernacular English in academic environments to assist children in communicating and acquiring knowledge of basic Standard English. The proposed system of using ebonics in schools called for proper public funding meant to train teachers how to speak AAVE in order to strategically teach people how to master the skills of Standard English. Members of the Oakland board in California also desired to have ebonics declared as an official language or dialect in order to maintain its legitimacy. But this controversy lies in the hands of one question: what exactly defines a language? Many opponents of the Oakland Resolutions dispute the argument of what actually qualifies a form of speech to become an official language. They viewed ebonics to be a dysfunctional form of English, something that should not be legitimized or given power in the United States. In “The Anti-Ebonics Movement”, Richardson proposes that when it comes to education systems in the United States, students of the African American backgrounds are “illegitimate” mainly because of the language they use. She, like many others, is in opposition to the proposal for the use of AAVE in academic settings simply because ebonics is not considered to be correct.
          Moving on from where the use of ebonics stands in an academic setting, we can also see how it is portrayed in the media. Here is an interview between news anchors Kyra Phillips and TJ Holmes from CNN during the beginning of President Barack Obama’s administration.

          For starters, the clip immediately begins with M.I.A.’s hit, “Swagga Like Us” – an introduction to support the ways in which Obama has shown “swag” during his first 100 days as President of the United States. Immediately following the song, we have Kyra Phillips who seems a bit overexcited on reporting about “swagger” and makes a comment about the cameraman being white and “trying to swagga” with “a little more flav-a”. She continues with an excessive use of the term “swagga” which is a term often associated with “Black English”. Not going to lie, Phillips’s emphasis on “swagga” and dropping the ends of other words in her sentences to sound more “black” seems kind of offensive and inappropriate. Moving on to her co-anchor, it is said that Holmes is concerned that they will not be politically correct as they assess Obama’s “swagga”. This automatically implies that the use of black speech is not politically correct, especially when reported on the news. At the same time we can think to ourselves “well, what makes a language politically incorrect or accepted as a cultural norm?”. Phillips then insists that previous presidents of the United States had no “swagga”, imposing that they were “stuffy and uptight” (as opposed to how Obama is as the first black president). Holmes goes on to say that qualities of “swagga” are most often associated to black men by the general public (clearly tying language to race). I think that an important point is made in Perry’s essay, “I’on Know Why They Be Trippin”. Here, Perry outlines ways in which the media commonly portrays ebonics as a negative aspect of society and a linguistic concern. Although the news anchors did not explicitly condemn the use of AAVE, it seems as though they were poking fun at it in relation to Obama’s black status. Just like how Perry insists that media delineates ebonics as slang in her writing, we can see in this YouTube video how “swagger” among other words, is seen as an informal way of communicating because of its overemphasis.
          On a lighter note, we can also see how ebonics can infiltrate the world of comedy. I think that many people find the uncontrolled use of ebonics to be funny due to the fact that it is both common and unfamiliar at the same time. What I mean by this is that AAVE is not something out of the ordinary for people living in the United States – we hear and see it everywhere. But at the same time, ebonics is has become so dissimilar to Standard English that it’s almost unfamiliar and unrecognizable.

          In this MadTV comedy sketch, there are contestants playing a game that involves describing and guess words in ebonics. There is one character that does not make any correct guesses because he seems to be the only one unfamiliar with this type of speech. With that said, he makes the comment “...and that differs from Standard English exactly how?” after being unable to say the word “Birthday” as “Berf-Day”. He is baffled by the distinction between the two forms, for he barely recognizes how they are different, yet both mean the same thing. Even though the segment is composed of comedians ridiculing the use of ebonics, it is important to remember that the use of AAVE is common among a large percent of this country’s population and plays a big role in both linguistic and social practices.

Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus

Rebecca Kemp

For my fourth and final blog posting, I wanted to explore the greater differences between men and women in their communication, adding on to my last blog posting As Otto Santa Ana describes in his text, “Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse”, often language is constructed as a barrier in which he refers to bilingual children in United States’ schools. The student’s Spanish in these schools is seen as a barrier to their English learning and thereby their education as a whole, as Ana exemplifies: “The only path to professional success is fluency in English, and prolonging the transition from Spanish just impedes children, he said” (208) taken from Rick Ledesma. Professional success is only achievable through learning English, and in this instance, Spanish is seem as a blockage in order to achieve success. What I want to do in this blog posting is complicate this assertion, and unpack it outside of the academic world: what of the language barrier between men and women, for instance?

In the cartoon depicted above, two women are seen conversing about their relationships and the women on the left’s previous boyfriend. This woman asserts that their relationship did not work out because of their “communication barrier”, which prompts the other woman to ask whether her boyfriend spoke another language. The first woman replies, “No, he was an idiot”. What is interesting to me is if you consider their communication barrier not so much as because of stupidity, but because of the gendered language barrier: they simply did not communicate in the same way and this, therefore, led to the demise of their relationship. I first initially reflected on the difference between men and women’s language in my post about code switching and how it is necessary for women to code-switch in order to communicate better with men. Can this be taken a step further, however, in the sense of the quote from Rick Ledesma, in which this language barrier must be eradicated in order to achieve success within our relationships (i.e. must one genderized form of language be abolished or deemed as an impediment, such as the insistence that Spanish inhibits bilingual students from succeeding in the English speaking world?)

This cartoon imagines the problems between Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden to not be one of sin and disobeying of God, but of a language barrier. The caption insinuates that the “world’s first language barrier…came much earlier than the Tower of Babel”. For those unfamiliar with the Tower of Babel in the Old Testament, basically the story goes that the people of Babylonia wanted to build a tower that would reach Heaven, and at this time, everyone spoke the same language. God decided to disrupt their efforts and to make it impossible to communicate with one another and thereby build the tower—he forced everyone to speak a different language, leaving the tower unfinished and these people speaking in different languages, unable to complete the tower. What I find most interesting about this cartoon is the insinuation that language was a problem long before the actual creation of different languages, if you follow the history of the Old Testament: that perhaps the communication barrier between Adam and Eve was the original language barrier. In the cartoon, Adam and Eve are both seen questioning whether the other speaks differently: “Sometimes, I think you speak a totally different language!” Relying upon the assumption that Adam and Eve spoke the same language, this infers that the difference in speech between Adam and Eve, between man and woman, was what lead to original sin.

To shift a less religious and more cultural example, take Dr. John Gray's book "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus".

The book promises to understand the opposite sex through a variety of ways, one being to break down the communication barrier that exists between men and women. Echoing the sentiments of the book, “Code Switching” that I mentioned in my last blog post, this book relies upon the inherent differences in communication between men and women and ways to overcome this language barrier. Chapter 5, for instance, entitled “Speaking Different Languages”, (among other gems such as “Women Are Like Waves” and “Men Are Like Rubberbands”) Behold an excerpt from this chapter found on Google Books:

The supposed language barrier that exists between men and women causes meanings and connotations to be confused and thus a failed relationship in regards to communication. What I find interesting is to seek the parallels between the performance of the bilingual students that Otto Santa Ana mentions in his piece and the success of couples together—their forms of communication prevent them from achieving success in their endeavors (whether passing a test or program in an English speaking school or having a meaningful relationship). Gray spends much of this chapter translating between “Venusian” (the language of women) and “Martian” (the language of men), such as the following translation:

What I think Dr. Gray’s book inevitably leads to, however, are generalizations—generalizations that may not represent the majority of situations, generalizations that are based off of claims that are differing and not consistently true. This can be said for the misconceptions about language acquisition and bilingual children in general. In Ana’s piece, children who do not speak English are seen as having a barrier to overcome, their Spanish a hindrance—but as Ana claims, “how can language be a barrier and problem if it is commonly recognized that all normal children, by their nature as human beings, fully acquire the languages they need to use, without schooling or any particular training at all?” (208). The assumption that men and women speak differently, despite whatever “scientific” evidence is provided, is often flawed and incorrect—these assumptions are based on myths, much in the same way that another language for children learning English is a barrier. So now, my fellow bloggers, the question is how we can reconceptualize these myths that are so prominent in American society in a way that imagines them differently; that men and women perhaps aren’t so different in their speech, and that bilingual children do not have a “language barrier” to overcome so much as the inconsistencies within the United States’ school system.

Linguistic Oligarchy: The daily ramifications of English only policies

Cathleen McCaffery
5.3.11

http://www.hellodefine.com/2010/10/nyc-gets-makeunder/

I stumbled across this blog posting about street signs in New York this weekend and began to think about the conversation we had in class based off of Kathryn Woolard’s article “Sentence in the Language Prison: The Rhetorical Structuring of an American Language Policy Debate.” We were talking about where language policies make sense in everyday American life. Consumer merchandise (board games, advertisements, stores etc…) are all marketed in English. Stores in iconic American locations like Times Square are defined by English signage. Although America has no official language, iconic locations, brands, stores, etc… are all represented in English. English obviously prevails above all other languages in the U.S. in the consumer sphere although there are approximately 337 languages spoken throughout the country (wikipedia). It makes sense, but as the world and America become increasingly more globalized, the inclusion of languages other than English is becoming both more necessary and more logical. The important question I think we have to ask is, to what extent? Should signs be in Spanish and English because those are the two most widely used in America? Yes. But that still leaves out many others, and with language and signage, someone is always bound to get left out. But whose decision is that to make? Voters? The Government? Woolard states that “English Only” policies in both the public sphere and school atmospheres reflect a xenophobic attitude towards immigrants and a need to protect the coveted white, European, wealthy, English speaking, male minority that holds most of the power in every sector of the U.S. economy, government etc… But as this group becomes an increasingly smaller minority, are we approaching a linguistic oligarchy? Woolard calls this status politics, when one social group, usually the dominant one (previously or currently) seeks to reaffirm their power and prestige once they feel it is being threatened. English is seen as something that might be lost, with Spanish and Spanish speaking immigrants infringing on this sacred linguistic space, officials are all the more weary and ready to enforce harsh English Only policies and programs like No Child Left Behind. These programs serve as covert efforts to eliminate Spanish from new generations of immigrants. This dominant minority is asserting its power symbolically through language in order to cope with the threat of multi-culturalism and bilingualism or even multi-linguialism, something America should be proud of and incorporate rather than seek to crush and obstruct.


According to the New York Daily News and this blog, New York bureaucrats plan to enforce National Legislation by spending $27.5 million dollars to replace the current street signs, which are in all capital letters, with lowercase signs. This legislation must legally be put into effect by 2018. With the current economy, this seems like a costly and ridiculous use of almost $30 million dollars. And what are the benefits? Supposedly this is supposed to make signs easier to read for drivers and less confusing for pedestrians as well. If someone can read English, they should be able to read in both upper and lower case, the problem is that many New Yorkers are not able to read in English in the first place! What does it matter how the letters look? This money could be spent much more wisely, incorporating Spanish into street signs, or directed towards something more worthwhile that could affect non-English and English speakers alike.
Although Woolard focuses on language use and English only policies in regards to politics and voter information, her ideas transcend to English only policies and English use in the wider sphere of everyday American life. Street signs seem like something taken for granted, yet their importance is key for transportation and simply getting from place to place on a daily basis. They are an essential component in the journey from home to work, work to school etc… This seems like an overlooked fact, yet something that is very important in the everyday lives of Americans, and New Yorkers in this example. But what better American city than New York, a culturally and linguistically diverse language metropolis where people from all different backgrounds come together to cohabit a quintessential American city, to start incorporating Spanish and other languages? In talking about voters, Woolard states that Proposition O, an argument for an amendment of the Voting Rights Act in order to provide voting materials in English only and not other languages. Woolard brings up the argument used, of the “uniformed voter,” that states citizen’s who cannot comprehend a ballot in English are unable to comprehend the candidates and issues and should not be voting. Can the same be argued in regards to street signs? Is someone who cannot read street signs in English unable to walk to the subway or unable to comprehend the process of traveling from Manhattan to Queens? This thought is based off of the idea that English holds some intellectual privilege over other languages. This is an absurd concept for many reasons. Translations of literary and other works are read in schools, academics from other countries are widely received in America and, scholars and intellectuals who do not speak any English have existed before English was even a language. This idea that the ability to speak English somehow gives the speaker a greater knowledge of politics or other things is based in no factual truth and in fact makes no sense if you think about it for more than a second. Incompentency stems from a lack of intelligence or from ignorance, something that has nothing really to do with language at all, but with time, genetics, location, income etc…