Nothing is Always Something: Analyzing Silence in Language

We spend infinite amounts of time studying, analyzing, and characterizing language and its influence in and on our lives. But what about when it is missing? In language, the absence of speech is silence, a phenomenon that occurs as frequently as speech. Like speech, silence leaves room for interpretation, in fact that’s all--other than to ignore it--that can be done with silence. Unlike speech, there is no physically tangible evidence therein making it more difficult to research and fully comprehend silence. Nevertheless, silence is an integral part of language as it allows for the growth of the individual and a defining of the self, revealed when silence is finally broken. To understand silence, analyzing its various occurrences such as (but not limited to) silence in discourse, culture and religion, and secondary language acquisition, reveal it as a form of language, clearly influencing the definition and creation of individual language.

Silence in General Discourse (Silencing)
It is important to first put discourse in to context. Theismeyer explains,

The object we are calling ‘discourse’ here consists of publicly accessible language and other forms of expression that circulate widely and consistently throughout a society. They include straightforward uses of language in exchanges of information as well as forms that comment on, analyse, entertain, or criticise other forms and their social
contexts, for example literary and artistic expression, scholarly work, and legal and
editorial decisions. (Theismeyer xi)

Silence that occurs in discourse can best be generalized as silencing. “…[S]ilencing as an act, whether single or repeated…has larger personal, social and global consequences…[it] attempts to create or maintain a relationship in which the social value of the exchange is at least apparently or symbolically unequal.” (Lynn xii-xiv) Silencing can be unwanted, imposed, or self-imposed acts caused by political dissatisfaction, social, racial, and/or gender inequality (including acts of aggression and violence), or by individual rights to silence.

Theismeyer argues that in these situations silencing forces the individual to disguise what they would like to say through other socially acceptable avenues of expression. In this way silencing works in the individual’s favor; it gives the individual more liberal use of language. Yet this seems counterintuitive as the individual must create language by not actually saying precisely what needs to be said to a society that is either ill-prepared or unwilling to listen. However disguised language to counter the affects of silencing does in fact work.

Individuals who are silenced by political dissatisfaction and/or social, racial, and gender inequality tend to break their silence through literature or artistic works. These works tend to be purposely ambiguous to promote discussion and interpretation that will eventually lead to acknowledgement of the artist’s conflict. Not all disenfranchised artists disguise their language. In fact, some artists, once having broken their silence, decidedly tell all in order to provoke emotions in the observer that only they, the one experiencing the disenfranchisement, could have felt. Because this action requires the artist to rehash painful memories, the observer is inclined to listen to the breaking of the silence and the redefinition of the artist as a new individual, incapable of being held down and silenced by past affronts.

Another form of silence in discourse is secrecy. As both a form of imposed and self-imposed silencing, individuals who are silenced by secrecy are forced to disguise their language out of conformity. Zerubavel explains the notion of secrecy as a conspiracy using “The Emperor‘s New Clothes” as a model. It began with one individual’s inability to tell the truth and was perpetuated by the rest of society. In the end, it took one individual to break the silence and tell the truth to end the conspiracy.

In the politically correct society of today, there are silent conspiracies whose existences are acknowledged, however the subjects themselves will never be discussed in public or without hushed tones in private. Individuals, groups, even whole societies can be in on these conspiracies; they “tacitly agree to outwardly ignore something of which they are all personally aware”. Societal conspiracies that are ignored or questioned today range from “sexual liaisons between masters and slaves in the antebellum South” to just the simple mention of the word unmentionables (Zerubavel 2).

Conspiracies of silence exist because of denial. Denial can essentially be comprehended as a self-imposed silence created by the community (those in on the silent conspiracy) on the individual. Consequently denial involves disguising what we want to say, to the extent that affects other senses.

As evidenced by the way we often use numbness imagery to portray it, being in a state of denial usually involves a quasi-sensorial shutoff. As conventional metaphoric allusions to “blind spots” as well as images such as “looking the other way” or “turning a blind eye” seem to indicate, we tend to equate being out of sight with being out of mind. It is hardly surprising, then, that we often associate denial with blindness. (Zerubavel 4)

Zerubavel continues by mentioning “turning a deaf ear”. Basically denial as a form of silence that is disguised not only in language but through all the senses. The individual loses themselves and the truth until they decide to break the silence.

Breaking the silence in conspiracy and denial is evidently the hardest because it causes embarrassment for all parties involved and does not come without repercussions. It is especially hard because those that break the silence in these situations are stigmatized as traitors or as every child was called at least once on the playground, “tattletale”. Therefore silence in secrecy through conspiracy and denial is essentially imprinted upon us at a young age.

Silence in Culture and Religion
In the Western world, silence is dysfunctional. Westerners “favor performance over contemplation, participation over inaction, and--what is most relevant here--speech over silence” (Granger 11). They are inclined to fill silence to make conversion less awkward, and at times, to make conversation itself. Yet in much of the Eastern World, silence is appealing. Easterners “…take the attitude that it’s a waste of time to use words to chop reality up into little pieces…Instead, the emphasis is often on inner, lived experience, which cannot be defined in words.” (Stevenson 24) Therein it is plausible to assume that silence is culture specific (Montiglio 3) One way to approach this difference is to assess religion, in the sense that religion relates to culture as a way of life; silence in religion must also exist along the west-east cultural divide.

Western cultures are uncomfortable with silence because it is ambiguous. In a world based upon definition and categorical organization, westerners cannot let silence be because it does not fall into a category that they can deal with accordingly. Westerners find it necessary to reconstruct silence in order for it to have meaning; it is an absence that must be filled. Westerners are so inclined to fill silence, that those that are isolated become psychotic in the need to fill the silence of isolation with words--they begin to mutter and talk to themselves. It parallels the fear of becoming widowed; it is ultimately the fear of being left to one’s demise, the first sign of which is silence, with no one to talk to and no one to respond when you cry out. Even in western prisons, solitary confinement is a punishment reserved for the worst offenses.

Western religion mostly reflect western culture. Consisting of primarily of Judeo-Christian dominations, there is never complete silence during most western religious services. If anything there is a hushed reverence: an imposed and self-imposed silencing. “…[S]ilent worship is the least imperfect homage that one can pay to the only God, who, being one, baffles the multiplying operations of language: the only true language to speak to God, and of God, is silence” (Montiglio 9). In essence, the silence that does occur in religion exists only because of the belief in something so infinitely greater than man, that there is no language other than silence in which won’t offend it.

When western religions wish to beseech this being, they choose to completely break their silence. Montiglio discusses the idea of prayer in western Judeo-Christian religions.

All rituals call for prayers, and all prayers call for fully audible voices. From Homeric epic down to tragic poetry the words meaning “prayer” mostly emphasize the sonorous quality of the utterance. Homeric euchomai (to pray), for instance, outside the religious sphere signifies “to assert oneself loudly and publicly”; moreover, when this verb means “to pray,” the vocal dimension of the prayer is highlighted by the response of the god invoked, who “hears.” A prayer is an attempt to hit the ears of the gods, that they may “listen.” Thus, the relationship between man and god in prayer is envisaged as a relationship between a sender and a recipient of sounds. It is a relationship with a remote deity, which only a resonant voice can hope to bring nearer. (Montiglio
10-11)

This shows that in respect to prayer westerners favor speech because they believe it is more efficient in aiding them gain what they want. Hushed reverence would get them nowhere. They become individuals seeking to define themselves by their wants. Consequently praying in hushed tones is stigmatized as an action relating to magic, mysticism, and the occult.

Eastern culture and religion view silence as insightful, best summarized by Taoist idea, “Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know.” For many easterners, “…true wisdom is not so much a doctrine that can be explained in words, but an experience, a state of mind, or a way of life” (Stevenson 24) It is this idea that carries eastern culture; words are spoken in order to make a point, but they are never the defining and end to all ends of the subject of discussion.

The idea most often highlighted in eastern religion is meditation, the finding of one’s inner quiet. Meditators sit in silence. Not just silence of the vocals, but silence of the mind and silence of the ears. The aim is increase concentration and clarity by simply being--closing off the mind and mouth--in oneself. Even in vocal meditation where mantras occur, mantras are characterized by the silence that follows (i.e. the mantra OM, chanted aa, oh, mm, silence) as it represents transcendence, the highest state of being. (Stevenson 25)

In this way, silence in culture and religion falls along the divide of west versus east. The west being uncomfortable in silence is best summarized by Stevenson stating, “All this goes to show that what often passes for “understanding” in the West--fixing on a concept and analyzing it to see what it is and how it works--tends to look like so much obsessive bean-counting…” (25). The east values silence to the extent that no summary is needed.

Silence in Secondary Language Acquisition (SLA)
Secondary Language Acquisition (SLA) is the process of learning or being fully immersed in a language that is not your mother tongue. For many this process involves the silent period, an objectively observable stage in the development of some second language learners, that manifests itself in certain psychical characteristics (Granger, 3). The silent period does not occur in all secondary language learners, varies in degree, and is not always characterized by silence. Researchers cannot agree on how define or categorize SLA, much less the silent period; some completely deny its existence. However for the purpose of this treatise, my own definition of the silent period will be reflective of Granger’s.

I hold that what silence signifies could actually be much more than the absence of speech during the process of second language acquisition, that it may be a psychical moment, as well as a linguistic stage, in the complex process of moving from one language to another, and from one self to another. For silence is not limited to the absence of verbal expression. The self, the identity, can also be silent, unexpressed, and even--at least temporarily--lost. (Granger 12-13)

Essentially the silent period is when a speaker cannot express themselves in the way they wish; they are unwontedly silenced.

The silence in the silent period occurs for all language speakers at least once in their lives, even for mono-linguists. The early years of infancy are spent observing and imitating the language of the adults around them. The silent period in infancy ranges from the completely silent child that one day pipes up with a word or two, to the child that initially says a few phrases repeatedly then suddenly is able to string together a sentence or two. As first language acquirers grow older, they depend less and less upon their adult influences and begin to create language on their own. They’ve officially broken the silent period because they have created themselves as individuals in language.

This is essentially the same process that second language acquirers go through. However, once again researchers disagree as to when, precisely, one breaks through the silent period. Saville-Troike’s belief is that the silent period ends when language is “…distinguish[ed] between the ‘repetition of others utterances [and] recall and practice’ as one kind of speech act, and the ‘creation of new linguistic forms’ as another”. Basically, Saville ascertains that the silent period ends when the individual is able to creatively speak the language and express themselves in their own words. Granger essentially agrees with this argument when she states, “…silence within the second language acquisition process [is] less as an interpretable communicative strategy and more as a manifestation of identity formation-process.”

Therefore in SLA, an individual is finally able to express themselves uniquely, once and only once they have passed the silent period. The breaking of silence in this example of silence is the creation of an individual.

Conclusion
There are far many more examples of silence than are discussed in this treatise. In studying silence, we must remind ourselves that silence can never be fully understood; studying silence is the interpretation of non-existent speech. How can we make assumptions from nothing? Nevertheless, silence as evidenced in its varying forms, holds the key to the creation of the individual through language or rather, by what the individual chooses, refuses, or cannot say. So I begin self-imposed silence.

References
Granger, Colette A. Silence in Second Language Learning : A Psychoanalytic Reading. Clevedon, GBR: Multilingual Matters Limited, 2004. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/stanford/Doc?id=10096120&ppg=28.

Montiglio, Silvia. Silence in the Land of Logos. Ewing, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2000. p 3-45 .
Stevenson, Jay. Complete Idiot's Guide to Eastern Philosophy. Indianapolis, IN, USA: Alpha Books, 2000. p. 24-25 http://site.ebrary.com/lib/stanford/Doc?id=10048585&ppg=51.

Thiesmeyer, Lynn Janet. Discourse and Silencing. Representation and the language of displacement. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/stanford/Doc?id=10041591&ppg=11.

Zerubavel, Eviatar. Elephant in the Room : Silence and Denial in Everyday Life. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2006. p ix-16 .

Back 2 Old Skool

The latest article I read was a short one, but meaningful nonetheless. The majority of India's 573 recognized tribal peoples live in the lower region of the Himalayas. In this area there are varying languages, some lost, some used for efficiency, and some forced upon conquered tribes.

In an attempt to promote access to these areas, the Head of the Gojri Wing of Jammu and Kashmir Academy of Art, Culture and Languages, Dr. Javaid Rahi has created a project to translate rare works in English, Persian and Sanskrit into Gojri (the language of one tribe out of the 573 recognized tribal population of India). His major goal is that his work, will spark translations in other tribal languages.

This project is to be finished by 2010, and in my opinion, will be the beginnings of India's Second (perhaps) Renaissance. India's economy is already flourishing, so is its population, and with the spread of ideas through translating classics the outcome of these combinations seems wholly reminiscent of Italy's Renaissance. Who is to say?

~1~

J-O-B or D-A-T-E

You ever have a job interview where the end outcome is entirely unexpected? You may get the job with an additional request, like a date. If you're wondering why it happens, answer this question: which way do you tilt your head?

According to Tonya Redman, an expert body language analyst and professional speaker, if you tilt right it suggests you're more "...trustworthy...", while tilting to the right evoke "...sign[s] of attractiveness and desirability." Reiman believes that "...about 90 percent of our interpersonal communication is nonverbal. How bodies move, what expressions a face makes, how fast one speaks, and even where we sit in a business meeting, send messages far more convincing than any words spoken."

One important aspect of body language that has continued over the decades is the handshake. According to Reiman there are no less than 12 ways to shake hands incorrectly in respect to strength, affection, eye contact, sweat, and body lean. The worst is the limp handshake, which lacks all of these qualities; the best being an equal mix of all of these aspects will simultaneously introducing oneself.

Reiman isn't the only one to postulate on the idea of body language. UK's Robert Phipps has worked with companies such as Canon, Apple Macintosh, Hewlett Packard, and Rank Xerox; he is also leading commentator on political leaders for BBC and several other media outlets. He gives Ten Tips to better body language in ten categories: eye contact, posture, head position, arms, legs, angle of the body in relation to others, hand gestures, distance, ears and mouth movements. All of these aspects play a large role in how people respond to you.

So perhaps the things we don't say impact us more than we think. Next time you want a job and a date with your future employer (a strongly discourage) tilt left for half the interview, then right for the rest.

~1~

Language: The Sharpest Blade

Caillera, or French slang, was a language created by the youth of France’s minority (mainly North African Arabs). It was meant to unify and create a sense of belonging amongst the mostly poor and often politically underrepresented minority of France's ghettos. They, in feeling rejected by France and its culture, have rejected French culture through language, the strongest aspect that unifies any culture.

Caillera is impenetrable to most French speakers as it is a mix of "...old argot and Arabic, black American, African, Creole and Romany"; it would require French speakers to remove themselves from their comfort zone and learn in the least, Arabic. Many words are insulting to the white, French majority; however much of the language is basically the pronunciation reversal. For instance (this is an example in English), to say the word "banana", one would say "anaba".

France has been trying to suppress the growth of French slang, enforced by L'Academie Francaise, a body that defines Standard French. Not that this matters, as 10 banlieue (project) youths, have decided to take Caillera to the next level.

The Lexik, is a guide to Caillera, that these youths have written. French from all backgrounds and ages are using this to expand their street smarts--not including purists who are appalled, perhaps due to the fact that much of the language insults them. Perhaps the purists need to educate themselves a little more though because much of Caillera uses obsolete French, much of which isn't used in modern French. So in fact, Caillera would be the more pure form of French, would it not?

This is the most efficient form of peaceful protest that I have known in my lifetime--language as a political weapon. And yes, this a language; it crossed the line from slang to language when it became communicative tool amongst a relating culture. I would also have to argue that, especially now that Caillera has an official dictionary/guide, it is official.

~1~

It's Not Just US

After reading a recent article entitled "Language Faultline Makes Belgians Foreigners in Their Own Country", I've had to rethink my position on America's own problem with languages and immigrants. In Belgium, a country where the majority speaks Flemish and a large minority speaks French, the problems of foreigners and their language(s) has reached a peak.

This Saturday marks the fifth month in which Belgium has been without a government; on June 10th elections were held, but a coalition government failed to be produced. This is all because of the striation between Dutch Belgiums in the north and French Belgiums in the South. The French Belgiums feel that they have no representation at all in politics and are especially enraged because there are bans against French-speaking in a lot of places including schools. Many feel as if they are foreigners in a place they do call home.

On the opposing side, Dutch Belgiums believe that the French Belgiums that are having issues with these policies are the die-hard French, who believe their language is superior. French did used to be the official language of Belgium, while it was still under French rule, but after WWII and with the rise of nationalism, Dutch Belgiums wanted a nation with a language uniquely theirs; therein came the rise of "Flemish-only" in many areas.

In Dilbeek, the city where most of this has come to head, the mayor, Stefaan Platteau, who is a descendent of French huguenots, has even said "If I moved to Paris, I would find it normal to learn French."

So this all brings me back to the US. The question that lies before us is should we allow Mexican immigrants to influence our politics and shape our language landscape? Will this lead to a breakdown in government like that in Belgium? How do we resolve the issue of integrationg without forcing assimilation?

~1~

10 for 10

A few blogs ago, I wrote about the probable connection of music and language. What the correlation is, I am not sure, but what I do know is that when it comes to learning how to speak languages, music definitely helps.

Arpan Sharma is a great example of this example. As a ten-year-old, he has learned as many languages as he is old. Many of them were self taught (with the help of language DVDs) and Hindu, the native language of his parents, was taught to him at home.

It's not just that he has a few key phrases memorized, "He speaks French with flair, rattles off German with ease and can hold a lengthy conversation in Swahili." He is reasonably fluent in five of the ten languages; however the speed in which he has picked up speaking the others is incredible. Perhaps it helps that he is also in the National Children's Orchestra? According to his teachers, they believe that that is the key to his unique ability to pick up languages so quickly.

In recent years, he has participated in the National Junior Language Challenge (see press release); last year he placed third and this year he has already reached the final round with 30 other competitors.

~1~

The Language of Unrestraint, The Language of Athletes

As an athlete (currently taking a year off), I'm constantly provoked when I hear others talking about how athletes are taught disrespect and allowed to proceed through school and life unrestrained. Usually the comments referred to athletes of the pro-world, but every once in awhile it would be aimed towards young athletes like myself. Every once in awhile, I find myself torn because there is truth to these allegations; however I believe more and more athletes like myself look to be exceptions to these comments.

In reading Beverly Beckham's article in response to Reebok's endorsement of Allen Iverson saying, "That those who try to find a balance between sport and life are defeated before the opening buzzer. We respectfully disagree. Actually, we disrespectfully disagree. Actually, screw those guys," it became absolutely clear to me why this assumption is perpetuated. In this instance, athletes are basically being told to ignore respect and do what they want; however to the young athletes Iverson was talking to--a completely different interpretation—this would mean don't let anyone stop you from achieving your dreams.

Some might ask, why didn't Iverson just say the latter half of what I just said? Because his use of language was more efficient and more practical for communication/what he was trying to communicate to the young athletes.

Beckham took offense to Iverson's use of "Screw those guys", especially when teachers and students alike stood up and clapped. She went on to mention that this mindset is what allowed those like Michael Vick to think that they were invincible.

This raises a few questions. Where do we draw the line in efficient communication versus respectful communication? Who's allowed to say what when? When do the negative consequences transition from the speaker to the interpretation of the listener?

I don’t feel qualified enough to answer these questions and simultaneously, I feel prejudiced as an athlete. I heard prep talks like this as an athlete, but today I am not the “invincible” athlete. I do respect others. I do have a positive attitude and I know better than to take Iverson’s words to what some interpret extremely.

~1~

1844 to 2007 Part 2

In my last post, I responded to the news article discussing the use of "idiot" and "insane" in several state constitutions. Notably, I did not discuss the context of the time period in which the words were used because I assumed (unfortunately) that it would be understood that those words were acceptable in reference to 1844. However, it is 2007. To use the words "idiot" and "insane" to describe someone with mental handicaps is a.) not politically correct and b.) not correct at all in most instances. Not all mentally handicapped individuals have the mental capabilities of a two year old (as defined by the word idiot) and not all are insane--as defined by having a serious mental disorder that leaves them selective perceptive.

The problem with these words is the overarching way it is used to deem a minority of Americans. This minority includes those that only have physical disabilities such as quadriplegia--quadriplegics are fully capable of voting, they might not have the mobility to do so. And if we're going to discuss insanity--why are those deemed criminal insane, still allowed to vote?

This is not just a problem of “teenagers’ mak[ing] up words with whatever meaning they want”, especially in this case; adults are the ones finding offense with this word. The ramifications of using words like this in the 21st century are reflective upon American ideals and what we deem appropriate. We, whether or not we believe it or like to be defined as such, are the world's role model--a role model who must constantly improve itself and fix its faults.

Furthermore by using these words, we disenfranchise a larger group than originally meant in 1844. It's not just about these two words being "bad" words; it's about the fact that these words offend in the context of the 21st century. Originally, it obviously wasn't meant to cause injury, but now that it does cause injury--let's not be afraid of change. That's all it really comes down to. We must never be afraid to change, especially in ways that make us better.

~1~

1844 to 2007: More Than Enough Time To Change

Remember the very first time you were scolded for calling someone "stupid", "idiot" or "dumb(y)"? And as the years progressed you were scolded for calling those with mental handicaps "retarded"? I do.

It's hard to imagine a time when these words were commonly used to refer to those with mental handicaps. The use of these words was so common, that in at least eight state constitutions (New Jersey, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico and Ohio) the words "idiot" or "insane" appear to describe those with limited mental capacity--in order to keep them from voting.

In New Jersey's case, this was adopted into the Constitution in 1844--it is now 2007. It has taken more than a century and a half for New Jersey to finally decide to put the use of these words to the ballot. Advocates for the disabled contend the use of these words because it's inaccurate--not every disabled individual is mentally incapacitated--and have pushed to have these words replaced with those "lack[ing] the capacity to understand the act of voting".

New Jersey's story is a happy ending, but what about New Mexico. Their "...voters in 2002 rejected a plan to remove "idiots" and "insane persons" from that state's Constitution by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent"?

It just goes to show, how hard it is to strike certain words from our vocabulary, especially when we aren't the ones being insulted by it.

~1~

What English Lacks

Lately I've found myself in the realm of book reviews--it is not on purpose I swear--but yet again I've added another book to my Must Read List.

Michael Vex is the author of Just Nu: Yiddish for Every Occasion (When English Just Won't Do). It was that last bit at the end that caught my--how many times a day do I always complain about how English doesn't do words justice? I had to know what this book was about.

What I found was language that had me written all over it. Yiddish is simple in use, yet complex in meaning, "...consisting of equal parts disbelief, contempt and impatience." The latter is what has me wanting to learn the language. In addition to attitude through drawn-out syllables and vim through quick speech, Yiddish does justice for times when the word idiot is just not enough.

It's the meaning behind the words that causes the effect. There's a difference between calling someone an idiot and comparing them to the likes of a person who sees a wall and walks into it--the latter is visually appealing and especially when the speaker is in a state of anger does mild justice to smarting nerves.

To me this is like Yoruba, except our insults when translated literally (when one really thinks about it what they've just said) make you laugh. For instance if someone a question in which you believe they know better than to seriously ask that allowed, you respond, "Baba jo, a mbere irugbon, kil'o fa sababi?", which translates literally to "A man burned to death, do we ask him what happened to his beard?" I'm laughing right now because the added affect is the hiss and eye roll that usually come with this statement.

In this same instance, Yiddish does justice for insults--appropriating far better insults that help change the mood of the speaker into one that does justice when justice can't be done anyway but verbally.

~1~

So...umm...this is why...like..we use umm...like...yeah. You know what I mean?

In my last post, I spent a little time talking about a book I'd already read, this time I want to talk about a book that has officially become my first priority on my Must-Read...Eventually-List. I was turned on to this book, by Ted Landphair's unique review which had several um's and uhh's in the preview. I had to see what this was about--with all the warnings of every English teacher I've ever had ringing in my head--because this a piece was in Voice of America. What possible exception allowed someone to write umm, uhh, and like (my English teachers especially complained using these words verbally, much less writing them) in their work?!

What Landphair had done was play upon, Michael Erard's study on the verbal mishaps of English speakers with words such as "umm", "uhh", "like", and spoonerisms. Erard wrote about them in his book entitled Um...: Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders and What They Mean and further went on to explain why it is that we stumble.

It is very rare to find someone who doesn't stumble to find words, "...such as the late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ...It's called 'eloquence.'" It is human nature to mix up words because we compose and think while we're talking. This is essentially the most basic form of multi-tasking we do and when we can't multitask properly we fill the gaps with instead of space words like "umm", "uhh", "err", "like", and "you know what I'm sayin’?". This isn't saying that we're dumb or incompetent (although Landphair argues that today's youth is verbally lazy), but rather that we are only capable to a point. According to Erard's calculations, we rack our brain for one word every four hundred milliseconds, meanwhile we must verbalize what we're thinking.

He goes on to discuss why it is that we get so angry about our blunders. Erard discussed the consequences of linguistic blunders with public-speaking professionals and self-righteous amateurs, who in turn basically related that in certain circles language is a sign of competency and the use of umm and uhh lengthens conversations and decreases the listener’s attention. Erard uses as an example the constant blunderings of President George W. Bush; he ascertains that the media has pounced upon Bush's constant verbal blunders and helped expound upon the idea that Bush is incompetent, an argument I'll reserve for another day.

Other causalities of blunders, including bilingualism and age, help Erard conclude that malapropisms are not representative of ignorance or inability. We should be cautious about the assumptions we make about people especially in these latter two instances because at the base of it all we're all human.

~1~

Where Should We Draw the Line?

As I sat reading this thread in response to Zdenko J. Bergl's Coming to America (Letters to the Editor in the Kansas City Star), I found myself riding the fence. Initially I felt from my family's own experiences that what Bergl was saying was true--why should one ethnic group change the way America is? How is this fair to other ethnicities who have taken the time to learn English? Yet simultaneously, my sympathies lay not with Bergl, but with immigrants in general and the struggle that is called "living in America".

Then I thought to myself, put yourself in the immigrants shoes--the modern ones that is. I'm sure someone can tell me their family's personal story of rags to riches that may prove otherwise, but I personally believe that post-WWII immigrants had more to work with than modern day immigrants on the basis of being West European (that in itself is another discussion). Not saying there wasn't racism towards both groups; however modern immigrants are concerned with the survival of their family: feeding, clothing, and housing them to the best of their abilities. This means menial jobs that require hours that most Americans wouldn't dream of working. This differs from post-WWII immigrants in degree of contemporary poverty levels--most modern immigrants would be in my opinion below the level of poverty corresponding to 1940’s immigrants.

And where in these priorities does learning a new language lie? It isn't a choice for them; they are too busy--whole families working in horrendous factory conditions--to learn a new language. Yes, perhaps their priorities are misguided, but poverty and starvation will always override any other action.

Yes…I know, I know—I feel like I can hear a thousand voices simultaneously shouting, “SO WHAT?! My family came to America and we learned English!” Yeah, and so did mine. But wouldn’t life have been a lot easier for yours and my families if someone had allowed us to retain our mother tongues, in order to survive everyday living? In order to give our sick children, proper doses of medication? In situations like the latter, if not for translations in Spanish we’d be talking about “Bad Parenting on the Rise in Hispanic Populations”—or something of the sort.

I think all I’m trying to say is have pity—tender mercy—upon others. Yes, it isn’t fair that we don’t have German, Italian, or Russian (and especially don’t have many African languages) translated all over America, but perhaps its better we don’t let history repeat itself. Perhaps we’re being progressive—so let progression occur in peace. One thread said what I feel best and I'll leave at that:

"I see it somewhat differently. My grandparents were also from Sicily. My grandmother lived in an Italian enclave in New Jersey and spoke only Italian. My father spoke both English and Italian. And I speak only English. Give the Hispanic people three generations, and I suspect it will be the same for most of them. Why make a big deal about a problem time will solve?"
-"Joe Barone"

~1~

Them's Fightin' Words!

In the politically correct mania of today, some words have so much baggage, that every time they are used publicly, debate ensues. It doesn't matter if the president or your best friend used them--debate will eventually ensue, substantially more so for those in the same spotlight as the former.

For Isiah Thomas, the hot seat is just the beginning. He is accused of sexually harassing a former team executive of the Knicks, Anuche Browne Sander and referring to her as a bitch. Further tangling his predicament, in his disposition Thomas was bold enough to state that it was, "...less offensive for a black man to call a black woman a “bitch” than it was for a white man".

PEOPLE! COME ON IT’S 2007. A bitch is a bitch just like any other derogatory/insinuating word. A word meant in spite and to provoke ill-will in any situation, no matter the speaker, will STILL by the time it reaches the listener be received in spite and ill-will. Let's even break this down scientifically just in case my point is being missed. When the sound waves reverberate through the air and final bounce of the listener's eardrums, neurons transmit the message to the brain's language center and registers the sound as--wait for it--an insult!

In response, Al Sharpton (I usually don't find myself agreeing with him; however I am more than grateful that Al Sharpton said this as a black man to another black man) remarked, "We cannot have double standards for sexism and racism,” and asked that if the video was not spliced Thomas should apologize immediately.

All of this raises another issue that has been troubling the black community: the use of the word nigger. In my opinion, no matter the context of the word, nigger should never be used. Arguably, I am using the word now.* However, I believe that this is the slur of slurs--it carries so much baggage that it truly can't empower anybody--and it can't be taken back and used positively without negatively reflecting itself on those that use it. This is the same stance I have for bitch.

If you have ever have the chance, for those of you that question my opinion of the use of nigger, I strongly encourage you to read Randall Kennedy's "Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word" and quickly change your mind.

~1~


*Disclaimer: The use of derogatory terms in this post do not reflect my everyday vocabulary, but rather make sure that there is no room for ambiguity in what I am expressing.

America: the Rich Kid Slacker

Tara Ashraf, surely read my mind. She clearly vocalized (no mistake here, as I imagined a seething woman on the brink of shouting in an almost Jennifer-Hudson-singing-And-I-Am-Telling-You like fashion) her list of grievances against America was poignant, while she remained substantially American. She wasn't disloyal. She wasn't treasonous. She was an American trying to help her fellow citizens better themselves.

Ashraf doesn't directly talk about the idea of a universal language--one is likely to assume she is opposed to it--but does evoke some thought in regards to it. The idea of a universal language is an idea that can be traced as far back as the story of Babel. Ironically, back then it didn't work either.

What Ashraf proposes is that instead of snubbing the world, America should require that each student take a foreign language in order that they will become aware of the world around them. And it's not just about learning to speak language--we must learn the language in context of the contemporary world: have discussions of politics pertaining to countries speaking that language.

As we seem to be a trickle down society in terms of how we gather information, our first of information, the media (all of forms of medium), needs to play a major role in re-acclimating America to the world. America is like the nuns in Sister Act--they seemed uptight and self-righteous at first, but when taught to sing in a new way they were able to connect with their community and make strides towards strengthening their bonds with a community looking up to them for help. If only America, truly understood what it was capable of.

On a personal note: I understand that while it is a huge advancement for higher education to offer and require Latin languages or Dutch languages, it is pertinent that these languages not take complete precedence. In the one world we live in today, if we are truly concerned we should have available in our school systems the languages of third world countries, especially those in Africa and Southeast Asia. It was a struggle for my high school to bring in a Chinese curriculum, but in the end we have now fostered an exchange program with a leadership school in Shanghai.

America, be better; do best.

~1~

The Hills Are Alive With the Sounds of Language...wait Huh?

In the first of two application essays for this course, I reflected upon my experiences in speaking Yoruba and its influences on how I thought.

“Yoruba is a very pitch oriented language and to me the beauty of it is just
that--it's like music, where every note fits. When I speak Yoruba I find it easy
to express myself aesthetically, something that I'm not always capable of doing
in English. It has shaped me as a person because I like to see the beauty in
everything. When I say "beauty", I mean both things that are appealing and
unappealing to the eye. In Yoruba, things are so named to establish the sense of
"beauty" in an object; whether it is trash or rose, they are bestowed names that
fit uniquely in their own "beauty".”

In retrospect after reading Music and Language Are Processed by the Same Brain Systems, perhaps my classification of Yoruba as a musical language, both in tone and with each word representing a note equivalent (a word fittingly given to an object), was misguided. I was correct to state that Yoruba is pitch oriented as there are a whooping 21 vowel sounds; however perhaps my recognition of language and music has much more to do with the findings of this study.

According to researchers at the Georgetown University Medical Center, in both memory systems (one in the temporal lobes and the other in the frontal lobes) we learn to recognize “…words and meanings in language and familiar melodies in music” in the former and in the latter we “…unconsciously learn and use the rules that underlie both language and music, such as the rules of syntax in sentences, and the rules of harmony in music.” They tested subjects to see their reactions to common songs (i.e. Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star) and their in-key variants (different octave) and off-key deviants (disharmonious). The brain wave patterns that they recorded were the same as those discovered for previously studied brain patterns for language memory.

Another article from UC-Irvine discusses the affects of Mandarin on perfect pitch. In Mandarin there are 16 vowel sounds (correct me if I’ve misinterpreted this) with just the slightest pitch producing a different word with a totally different definition. This has helped boost the amount of Chinese students with perfect pitch and goes a step further linking language and music.

So in my case, perhaps I’ve acquired “perfect pitch” of the Yoruba language. This may sound slightly absurd to some readers, but this seems to be a perfectly logical explanation as to why I need to use certain words and why certain words sound significantly better when spoken in Yoruba rather than in English. Ironically, in the Yoruba culture there is a drum called the gangan otherwise known as the talking drum. Today, the gangan is a ceremonial drum used to communicate complex messages to the listener(s) through its changing pitch music (it used to be a common place communication device). It is obvious to me that the Yoruba language has always and is meant to be identified with music.

So yes, I was misguided in my understanding of why Yoruba and music seem interchangeable to me—why words in English don’t create the same musical symphony that words in Yoruba do. And it’s amazing because I’ve never delved so deeply into why I’ve always seen Yoruba and music in this way. This new understanding of myself has left me euphoric and unable to stop smiling.

~1~

Dichoto-ME

Growing up bilingual and what I will term "biracial" has forced me to live a dichotomy: Nigerian versus American, western versus eastern, Yoruba versus English. The distinction between the former and the latter weren't always clear, so while growing up I had to define myself at every corner and avenue of my life; I created my own culture.

This culture was determined by my naively prejudiced understanding of my two worlds--being African was inferior and being American was superior. My five-year-old mind could never understand how just because my parents were from Nigeria (the more insinuating word being Africa) had to make my family poor and malnourished. My eight-year-old mind could not understand why both African-Americans and Caucasians alike made clicking noises when I walked by or asked if I owned various forms of wildlife (i.e. elephants, lions, tigers, jaguars, etc.). If not for the strict values my parents enforced at home, I am quite sure that I would have abandoned the so-called lesser half of my identity.

How many others have had to experience this tragedy? I can only imagine as I've made dozens of friends who have either made it through the tortures of being bicultural, biracial, and/or bilingual or have allowed various parts of their identities to fall to the wayside--they identify with the more accepted version of themselves.

Language and Society, I feel, is my key to meeting others like me, who have learned to cope with their own dichotomous worlds: to see how similarly or dissimilarly they managed their personal cultures. Assuming there will be students whose sole language is English, or at least hoping there will be, my hope is that this course will allow me to show them that the key to world unification and globalization is based upon patience, empathy, and consideration for others; a balanced world can only be achieved under languages, not just one language chosen by the world's super powers. I know this course will open my eyes to the different language mechanics that cause people to see and understand the world differently. In doing so, I hope to aid the process of world unification by reaching out and helping those around me understand each other, so that idealistically the world of tomorrow in which I want my children to grow up, will allow them to freely be themselves knowing that they are special in being "biracial".

~1~